| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wildcat89
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Total posts: 1565 Location: Southern Ohio Age: 37 Gender: Female |
 Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:52 pm
Post subject: Octomom legislation |
 |
|
Interesting.
Georgia 'octomom' bill likely dead this session
ATLANTA (AP) -- A Georgia measure inspired by California's "octomom" that would have restricted the number of embryos fertility doctors may implant likely won't pass this year.
It would restrict the number of fertilized embryos a woman could create and implant through in-vitro treatments.
The bill went to a Senate subcommittee Thursday for more study. It would have to be reported by Monday to be considered this session and that likely won't happen.
The bill's sponsor says he didn't want Georgia to end up having a case like Nadya Suleman. She gave birth to octuplets after having fertility treatments.
She has six other children and has relied on food stamps and disability income to provide for her family.
A similar bill is pending in Missouri.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Connie Joined: 28 Oct 2003 Total posts: 3392 |
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 5:57 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
That is interesting. It seems that could open doors for other fertility legislation... What happens if a woman is on fertility drugs and winds up with 8 viable embryos? Will legislation be formed to say she can't keep that many? (Not trying to stir the pot, just thinking "out loud.")
_________________
BBD needs a home.
Click to see available Grayson pets! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
court
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 4815 Location: my office Gender: Female |
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:38 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
this whole issue was about the fact that 8 were implanted, and ALL survived, which isnt the norm.
this comes dangerously close to forcing someone to have an "abortion" (of the fetus') if all take. while I personally think this woman is crazy, I cant accept a forced abortion if the mother doesnt want it/believe in it.
this is a VERY thin line.......perhaps they can force the doctor to implant less embryo's, but then there is no way of knowing how many will take, if any.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:06 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
I think this is typical government over-reaction. One, arguably mentally unstable, woman and one very unethical doctor does not constitute a crisis that requires hastily enacted laws!
I think this woman was insane and totally, 100% irresponsible to do this. She should not have done it and the doctor should not have enabled her to do it.
But, if a wealthy woman who lives in a 20,000 SF mansion, and can afford to pay the enormous medical bills and hire a staff of full time nannies to help her care for 8 babies, wants to do it, I would argue that it's her business and nobody elses (especially the government's). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Horsefeathers! |
Posted: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:08 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| soccerdog wrote: | I think this is typical government over-reaction. One, arguably mentally unstable, woman and one very unethical doctor does not constitute a crisis that requires hastily enacted laws!
|
Huh. Imagine that. I agree with this, actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| TgrrValily82 Joined: 25 Nov 2007 Total posts: 1957 Location: Pa Gender: Female |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
margeaux22
Joined: 09 Dec 2003 Total posts: 2609 |
Posted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:27 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildcat89
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 Total posts: 1565 Location: Southern Ohio Age: 37 Gender: Female |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:15 am
Post subject: |
|
|
Margeaux, Are you OK? you seem to be a woman of very few words this evening ... 
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MidnightsDance Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Total posts: 777 |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:27 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| soccerdog wrote: | | But, if a wealthy woman who lives in a 20,000 SF mansion, and can afford to pay the enormous medical bills and hire a staff of full time nannies to help her care for 8 babies, wants to do it, I would argue that it's her business and nobody elses (especially the government's). |
So, what a woman chooses to do with her own body is only her own business if she's filthy rich - but if she's not, then it becomes the government's business. Got it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 8:24 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So, what a woman chooses to do with her own body is only her own business if she's filthy rich - but if she's not, then it becomes the government's business. Got it. |
Oh where to start. 
I couldn't care less what ANY woman "chooses to do with her own body". It's unbelieveably lame to suggest that this has ANYTHING to do with her body. My comment had nothing to do with her body! It's ridiculous and disingenuous to act like you think it did. If she had the ability to care for her children (physically, financially and emotionally), I couldn't care less if she has 50 children.
My point was, obviously, that the government shouldn't be telling any woman how many children she can have *IF" she can afford to take care of them.
And what is "filhy" rich anyway? Why do you use such a negative word to describe a rich person? Do wealthy people just disgust you that much? I wouldn't be surprised if a "filthy rich" person signs your paycheck every week. 
And, once again, I would be HAPPY for the government to stay completely out of this. Completely. As long as she can provide for those 14 children without government assistance, more power to her.
And, if you think the taxpayers should happily pay for her to have 8 more children, when she doesn't have the means to care for the 6 she already had, where do you want to draw the line? Can she have a few more if she so chooses? And, why stop at children? Maybe she should adopt a dozen dogs or so. Would you adopt them to her? How many dogs a person has is nobody's business but her's is it? I want a couple more cars and a bigger house that I can't afford. Want to help me pay for those?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Horsefeathers! |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 9:09 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree with MidnightsDance and think her point is valid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
court
Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 4815 Location: my office Gender: Female |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:13 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| MidnightsDance wrote: | | soccerdog wrote: | | But, if a wealthy woman who lives in a 20,000 SF mansion, and can afford to pay the enormous medical bills and hire a staff of full time nannies to help her care for 8 babies, wants to do it, I would argue that it's her business and nobody elses (especially the government's). |
So, what a woman chooses to do with her own body is only her own business if she's filthy rich - but if she's not, then it becomes the government's business. Got it. |
it became the govt's business because she cannot afford to care for these children. The govt. is, and will end up, assisting her. Soccer's point was that this is so far a one-off occurance, and its a bit early to throw laws into the mix.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MidnightsDance Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Total posts: 777 |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:22 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
What you fail to recognize is that this legislation isn't about HER.
It's about the future reproductive rights of every woman in the entire state who seeks fertility treatment, for any reason.
And if that's not enough, it also sets arbitrary limits on medical care, without regard to the doctor-patient relationship. If legislation were proposed that limited medical care in that way for any other physical condition, the outrage would be deafening.
And no, soccer's point was that the rich can do anything they want and those who aren't as well off shouldn't be allowed to. It's a point of view that's absolutely pervasive throughout past postings as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| soccerdog |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:52 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What you fail to recognize is that this legislation isn't about HER.
It's about the future reproductive rights of every woman in the entire state who seeks fertility treatment, for any reason. |
No. You apparently misread my post! I AM NOT FOR THIS LEGISLATION!! I agree with you! The government SHOULD NOT regulate how many children, conceived naturally or by IVF, a woman should be allowed to have -- IF she has the means to provide for them!! Specifically, I said:
| Quote: | | I think this is typical government over-reaction. One, arguably mentally unstable, woman and one very unethical doctor does not constitute a crisis that requires hastily enacted laws! |
If this becomes a trend or a widespread problem, I might think differently but I do not think there are going to be a lot women with 6 young children they are not caring for, who want to go to a fertility clinic to have 8 more!! This is a very bizarre situation and I think it's highly unlikely that it's going to be repeated. I sure don't think there is any need for legislators to panic and start enacting laws to prevent it from happening again.
As I clearly said, as long as a woman has the means to provide for all of her children's needs, it's nobody's business how many she has.
| Quote: | | And no, soccer's point was that the rich can do anything they want and those who aren't as well off shouldn't be allowed to. It's a point of view that's absolutely pervasive throughout past postings as well. |
That wasn't my point at all! My point was that this is bad legislation because it prohibits anybody from having more than x babies by IVF even if they can afford to properly care for them.
I have NEVER said "the rich can do anything they want and those who aren't as well off shouldn't be allowed to". I have said, and I strongly believe, that ANYBODY should be allowed to do ANYTHING (legal) that they want to do if they can afford it. If you have the money to afford to care for 14 children, go for it -- have 14 children. Even 8 at one time if you want to! If you have the money to buy a 20,000 SF house, go for it. If you have to money to wear $3,000 dresses, go for it. If you have the money to buy a $2M yacht, go for it! But, if you DON'T have the money to afford those things, you don't have a "right" to have them, especially at taxpayer expense! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MidnightsDance Joined: 04 Dec 2006 Total posts: 777 |
Posted: Sun Mar 08, 2009 5:03 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| If, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if, if........ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Profile
FAQ
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
Calendar
