octuplets

[Roma]

Roma, I truly believe that Beeps was being satirical.

I guess I'm a little sensitive; for over a dozen years I have been a contact person for the falsely accused, usually fathers falsely accused of incest. I didn't want a funny line in someone's site to hurt that man, you know how quickly nonsense spreads.

 

[Rolfe]

I think it's another Mandy Allwood situation. There was a bit of a row about that if I remember rightly. I seem to remember that a doctor just prescribed a fertility drug for her without any real investigation into her alleged "infertility" and just let her get on with it. I don't remember any mention of IVF.

Yikes, I was thinking eight two-year-olds would pretty much be hell on earth. Add another bunch of young kids, and hell begins to look attractive in comparison.

Rolfe.

 

[BPSCG]

But isn't the decision whether to have children or abort them a decision that should be made only by the mother and her doctor, not by the government or anyone else? Who are we to judge whether a woman's choice is right or wrong?

Yes, absolutely, I agree with you. However, this is such an extreme case that it just gave me pause. (or paws)

Don't agree too quickly. I was being sarcastic there.

Fourteen kids, lives with her mother, husband is who-knows-where. What do you suppose the odds are that she and her kids are going to be on all kinds of public assistance? Food stamps. Welfare. Medicaid.

Assuming that's the case (and I don't know that it is - she could be an Iraqi oil heiress for all I know) all that public assistance will be paid by you.

So when someone says it's not your business whether or not someone has children, do you think it becomes your business if you are almost certainly going to have to pay for those children?

Infertility is indeed a medical condition--believe me I know. I think it does qualify.

I didn't ask if it was a medical condition. So is baldness. I asked if it was a disease or an illness. Not all medical conditions need treatment. Diseases and illnesses do.

No. it definitely seems to be the grandfather who's going to return to Iraq.

I think the wording is rather ambiguous, actually.

I talk about a lot of things that are none of my business.

Hell, that's half the purpose of Social Issues and Current Events.

I think Beeps was being satirical of someone who might speculate like that.

No, my speculation was in dead earnest, but I was admitting that it was pure speculation and that I had no evidence to back it up.

Doesn't it seem odd that the (grand)father is going back to Iraq so he can make money to send back here for the kids? When did Iraq become the great job market? I don't know the reason the (grand)father went back, and the suggestion of flight to evade prosecution for criminal incest was just being a little provocative on my part.

But I'd have to have my BS meter turned off and stored in the closet to think there was nothing fishy about it.

 

[BPSCG]

BPSCG, please, please, try to work with me here.
I think that the fact anyone would just Willy Nilly accuse an innocent man of incest with not a shred of evidence is dangerous.

I didn't accuse him. I made what I said, quite clearly, was completely evidence-free speculation.

I also made some evidence-free speculation that the woman is an Iraqi oil heiress.

The grandfather of those octuplets has a daughter with "a problem", lets say. He is supporting her, her other six children, and is now risking his life going over to a dangerous country to do hazardous work. Let's acknowlege that he is a responsible man.

And that, too, is evidence-free speculation. You don't know. And neither do I.

But going back to Iraq so he can make more money than he can make in the U.S.? That sounds pretty odd. There's much to this story that we haven't been told, and which we may or may not find out.

 

[LibraryLady]

Don't agree too quickly. I was being sarcastic there.

I'm sorry, I thought it was our one agreement a year time.

 

[TX50]

Just one more and she can form her own rugby team.

 

[Roma]

I didn't accuse him. I made what I said, quite clearly, was completely evidence-free speculation.

I also made some evidence-free speculation that the woman is an Iraqi oil heiress.

And that, too, is evidence-free speculation. You don't know. And neither do I.

But going back to Iraq so he can make more money than he can make in the U.S.? That sounds pretty odd. There's much to this story that we haven't been told, and which we may or may not find out.

Evidence-free speculation is a nice way to pass the time unless someone gets hurt.

 

[BPSCG]

I'm sorry, I thought it was our one agreement a year time.

Now, you did say that you're having second thoughts about whether it should simply be the woman's choice.

I'm going to put it starkly:

Anyone who thinks that it should always be the woman's decision whether or not to abort a baby, and that neither the government nor society at large has any standing in that decision, should also agree that it should always be the woman's decision whether or not get pregnant, and that neither the government nor society at large has any standing in that decision.

Because someone who says that the woman has the sole discretion in the case of deciding whether or not to have an abortion, but that she does not have it when deciding whether to have children, is saying that the government and society at large have no interest (no standing, in legalese) in a woman's decision to end a life, but it does have an interest (standing) in whether she should be allowed to start one.

That's why it gives you paws. There's an ethical contradiction there. Does the government, and does society at large, have an interest in whether or not an additional life gets brought into the world? Does the government have the power to interfere when a woman wants to start a life, but not when she wants to end it?

 

[aerosolben]

Anyone who thinks that it should always be the woman's decision whether or not to abort a baby, and that neither the government nor society at large has any standing in that decision, should also agree that it should always be the woman's decision whether or not get pregnant, and that neither the government nor society at large has any standing in that decision.

Because someone who says that the woman has the sole discretion in the case of deciding whether or not to have an abortion, but that she does not have it when deciding whether to have children, is saying that the government and society at large have no interest (no standing, in legalese) in a woman's decision to end a life, but it does have an interest (standing) in whether she should be allowed to start one.

Potentially, though, I think we could restrict certain mechanisms without undermining the fundamental right. For example, restricting the use of fertility drugs or limits on embryo implantation, under general drug or medical ethics regulations.

But in the case of people who go au naturale like the Duggars', you're right - there's probably nothing that can really be done ethically.

 

[BPSCG]

Potentially, though, I think we could restrict certain mechanisms without undermining the fundamental right. For example, restricting the use of fertility drugs or limits on embryo implantation, under general drug or medical ethics regulations.

If a woman has a right to a government-provided abortion, paid for by Medicaid, why shouldn't she have the right to government-provided fertility treatments, also provided by Medicaid?

If the government can legally say, "No, we're not going to pay for your fertility treatments," then what is the rationale for saying government must nevertheless pay for abortions?

 

[aerosolben]

If a woman has a right to a government-provided abortion, paid for by Medicaid, why shouldn't she have the right to government-provided fertility treatments, also provided by Medicaid?

If the government can legally say, "No, we're not going to pay for your fertility treatments," then what is the rationale for saying government must nevertheless pay for abortions?

Well, that depends - has the Supreme Court found that NOT funding abortions without restriction through Medicaid violates Roe v Wade? I'm not aware of such a case.

If not, then the leap from right to funding fails in both cases. The right to have children != the right to unlimited amounts of money to fund fertility treatments to have children.

If so, I'd have to reread Roe in detail to refresh my memory of what the biological justification is and whether it would translate.

 

[Roma]

Wasn't Roe v Wade base upon the woman's right to determine for herself if an existing embryo/fetus is going to continue to grow in her body? It's been years since my last ethics class but I'm pretty sure that was the scope of the decision, nothing at all to do with a woman's right to become pregnant. I don't believe that there is such a right, not written in law anyway.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, that depends - has the Supreme Court found that NOT funding abortions without restriction through Medicaid violates Roe v Wade? I'm not aware of such a case.

If not, then the leap from right to funding fails in both cases.

Not so. Many states provide abortion funding under Medicaid and additionally under their own state provisions. In many states, a poor woman can effectively get an abortion with little or no difficulty, at taxpayer expense.

So, that being the case, should women in those states be able to get fertility treatments with little or no difficulty, at taxpayer expense?

If so, I'd have to reread Roe in detail to refresh my memory of what the biological justification is and whether it would translate.

I doubt very much that Roe speaks to who should pay for the abortion.

 

[BPSCG]

Wasn't Roe v Wade base upon the woman's right to determine for herself if an existing embryo/fetus is going to continue to grow in her body? It's been years since my last ethics class but I'm pretty sure that was the scope of the decision, nothing at all to do with a woman's right to become pregnant. I don't believe that there is such a right, not written in law anyway.

I agree that it's probably not written in law. I'm simply pointing up the ethical dilemma: If a poor woman can have the state pay to have a life inside her terminated, why should she not also expect the enactment of laws that would have the state pay to have a life started inside her?

Is it because the killing of a fetus is of greater value to the state than the creation of one?

That gives me paws (pace, LibraryLady).

 

[Hokulele]

Is it because the killing of a fetus is of greater value to the state than the creation of one?

That all depends on which tax bracket it can be expected to occupy...

 

[Roma]

Abortion is considered a "medical procedure", under law the embryo/fetus is not a human being so it's like having a tumor removed or something like that.
I can't see how anyone can use that right to that medical procedure as a premise for the right to become pregnant.

 

[BPSCG]

Abortion is considered a "medical procedure", under law the embryo/fetus is not a human being so it's like having a tumor removed or something like that.
I can't see how anyone can use that right to that medical procedure as a premise for the right to become pregnant.

Don't obfuscate.

Everyone has the right to become pregnant. Even I do, though my lack of a uterus and ovaries and presence of testicles might make that difficult.

And while a fetus/embryo is not a human being under the law, it is undeniably alive; if you doubt me, ask your high school biology teacher.

So, if a woman has the right to have the state pay to for a "medical procedure" to have a life removed from her body, why should she not similarly have the right to have the state pay for a "medical procedure" to have a life inserted into her body?

I am not asking if she does have that right; I know of no law or judicial ruling that says that she does or does not. I am asking what the rationale should be to deny her that right.

 

[Roma]

BPSCG, believe me I do know that the embryo/fetus is alive, I would even call it human, when I was only a couple of weeks pregnant I even called it a baby, but that's not what the law calls it until after it's born.
It is apparant that there is no rationale for a person to be provided with a medical procedure to become pregnant other than they want to, rich or poor, good or bad, intelligent or stupid.

 

[BPSCG]

It is apparant that there is no rationale for a person to be provided with a medical procedure to become pregnant other than they want to, rich or poor, good or bad, intelligent or stupid.

You're missing the point; the point I'm making is that it is inconsistent for the state to pay to end a woman's pregnancy if she can't afford to pay for it herself, while refusing to pay to start that same woman's pregnancy if she is unable to pay for it herself.

What is the difference? The woman is the same, her financial situation is the same. The only difference is that in the first case she wants to end a pregnancy while in the second she wants to start one. Why should the state pay for the former but not the latter?

 

[aerosolben]

So, if a woman has the right to have the state pay to for a "medical procedure" to have a life removed from her body, why should she not similarly have the right to have the state pay for a "medical procedure" to have a life inserted into her body?

I am not asking if she does have that right; I know of no law or judicial ruling that says that she does or does not. I am asking what the rationale should be to deny her that right.

That second bit makes things clearer.

I don't think a woman has a right to have the state pay for an abortion, she simply has the right to not be prevented by the state from having the procedure done. So the second bit does not follow.