Reproductive rights in Europe

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Rinsaikeru, Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby emceng » Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:15 pm UTC

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120413/D9U42JE80.html

Spoiler:
Fertility treatment bans in Europe draw criticism


Email this Story

Apr 13, 9:27 AM (ET)

By MARIA CHENG

(AP) In this family photo dated Sept. 25, 2010, of lesbian couple...
Full Image



LONDON (AP) - More than three decades after Britain produced the world's first test-tube baby, Europe is a patchwork of restrictions for people who need help having a child.

Many countries have strict rules on who is allowed to get fertility treatments. And recent court rulings suggest nothing's likely to change anytime soon.

France and Italy forbid single women and lesbian couples from using artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, or IVF, to conceive. Austria and Italy are among those banning all egg and sperm donations for IVF. Germany and Norway ban donating eggs, but not sperm.

Countries including Sweden require couples to have a stable relationship for at least a year to qualify for fertility treatment. Switzerland, among others, requires couples to be married.


And nearly everywhere in Europe except Ukraine, couples are banned from hiring a woman to carry a pregnancy for them.

"These laws are completely out of date," said Dr. Francoise Shenfield, a fertility expert at University College London.

"It's a medical treatment and the decision to treat should be up to doctors," not judges, said Shenfield, an ethics expert for the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology.

Placing bans on egg and sperm donation is "discriminating against infertile couples," she added, although she acknowledged there were valid medical reasons for not treating some patients, like women over 50.

The European laws stand in contrast to comparatively few restrictions elsewhere, including in the U.S., Australia, Brazil and Canada.


(AP) In this 2011 family photo of lesbian couple Giuseppina La Delfa,...
Full Image


Experts estimate thousands of Europeans travel to another country each year for help having a baby, though exact figures aren't recorded. Many are single women who go abroad to get artificial insemination, which is banned for single women in countries including Sweden, Germany and Italy.

Marie Eriksson, a 36-year-old single mother in Sweden, described the restrictions as prejudice. "Having a child is not a right, but the possibility should not be forbidden because you don't have a partner," she said.

Eriksson, a librarian, traveled to a fertility clinic in Denmark after deciding she wanted to have a child on her own. "The alternative was to go out and meet a stranger at a pub," she said.

She gave birth to her daughter, Sonja, in 2008. "It was totally worth it," she said of the seven treatments she paid for.

Reasons for the restrictions vary from country to country. Many cite concerns about creating "unnatural" relationships between donors, parents and children. Others are driven by religious or cultural objections.


(AP) In this photo taken Monday, April 9, 2012 provided by Marie Eriksson, Marie Eriksson, left, poses...
Full Image


Recent attempts to change the laws have so far failed. Last November, the European Court of Human Rights upheld an Austrian regulation that forbids using sperm and egg donors for IVF.

In that case, two married couples sued the Austrian government, arguing the ban violated their right to a "private and family life" under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ultimately ruled the restriction was justified and cited problems like "splitting motherhood" between a biological mother and the woman carrying the fetus.

"I'm often dumbfounded by the position some European countries take on IVF," said Dr. Norbert Gleicher, medical director of the Center for Human Reproduction, a private clinic in New York City.

The restrictions in many European countries would be unthinkable in the U.S., Gleicher said, adding about 40 percent of his patients travel from abroad, many from Europe.

In Sweden, lawmakers are considering whether to change the law so that all single women have access to fertility treatment.


(AP) In this photo taken March 3, 2012 provided by Marie Eriksson, Sonja Eriksson, poses for a...
Full Image


Eriksson said the restrictions no longer match reality. "There are so many different kinds of families today that it is not sustainable to maintain laws and regulations based on traditional family ideals," she said.

For IVF, women must undergo hormone stimulation to produce eggs and a procedure to extract them from the ovaries. Embryos are created by mixing sperm and eggs together in a lab, then transferred into a woman's womb.

Fertility treatment remains a taboo subject in many countries.

Germany's history of eugenics - where Nazi doctors forcibly sterilized or euthanized people in an attempt to eliminate hereditary illnesses and handicapped people - makes officials nervous about any procedures that handle embryos. It was only last year that Germany approved an embryo test commonly used elsewhere to spot genetic problems. The test, generally used only in IVF pregnancies, is still banned in Austria and Italy.

In other countries, religion carries more weight. France and Italy both have strong historic ties to the Roman Catholic Church, which forbids IVF, primarily because the procedure may involve the destruction of embryos. The church is also against artificial insemination because it believes procreation should only be by a husband and wife through the natural act of sex.


(AP) Chart shows fertility laws for European countries
Full Image


Until 2004, Italy's fertility laws were fairly lax, leading to pregnancies in women as old as 60, and a proliferation of woman "renting" their wombs. A law supported by leading Catholic groups that year clamped down on egg and sperm donation, limited the number of embryos transferred, and outlawed the practice of freezing embryos. The law restricts IVF to "stable, heterosexual couples who live together and are of childbearing age."

Italy says allowing donated eggs could exploit women and that the practice "would lead to a weakening of the entire structure of society."

Most couples seeking fertility treatments don't need donated eggs and sperm. And many government health systems will pay for fertility treatments for those who have been trying at least three years to conceive.

People in Western Europe who seek medical treatment elsewhere cannot be prosecuted at home even if the treatment is illegal in their own country. But there can be other complications. For example, in France, children born through surrogacy are not entitled to a French passport.

Still, authorities are struggling with how to deal with the complexity of IVF families. Last month, France's Court of Appeal upheld a decision to grant civil status - similar to nationality - to twins carried by a surrogate mother in India for a French couple. But in 2011, the French Supreme Court denied civil status to twins born to a surrogate mother in the U.S.

For gay and lesbian couples in France, Italy, Switzerland and elsewhere, only one partner can be the child's legal father or mother.

"These restrictions imply that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens and that a child has to be raised in a conventional family," said Angelo Berbotto, a lawyer and acting secretary of NELFA, Europe's largest organization for gay and lesbian families.

Opponents say national health systems are not obligated to allow artificial reproduction techniques for same-sex couples.

"The desire to be a parent does not create the right to have children," said Gregor Puppinck, director general of the European Center for Law and Justice, a Christian group that lobbies European lawmaking bodies.

"What's lost is the best interests of the child," Puppinck said. "The child has a right not to have two fathers or two mothers."

Dr. Heinz Strohmer, a fertility doctor at a Vienna clinic, said most of his clients needing egg or sperm donations were more concerned about the logistics of getting treatment abroad than challenging Austria's law banning them.

"The only question they have is if we can organize everything for them," he said. Strohmer often works with clinics in the Czech and Slovak republics and Spain to get around the Austrian rules on IVF.

When Italian residents Giuseppina La Delfa and Raphaelle Hoedts decided to have a baby, they knew that would mean crossing borders. Needing a sperm donation for IVF that they couldn't get in Italy, the lesbian couple went to Belgium for more than a dozen cycles of fertility treatment. La Delfa gave birth to daughter Lisa-Marie in 2003.

"It was very difficult and it cost a lot of money, but it was the only way," said La Delfa, a 49-year-old French teacher. "Nothing was more important to us than her."

La Delfa considers the restrictions imposed on IVF for lesbian and gay couples not only archaic, but ineffective.

"They think there's only one way to be a parent," she said, of governments that ban fertility treatments. "They don't realize people will do whatever it takes to have a family."

For the two women, that meant another IVF trip last year, this time to Spain. Hoedts is currently pregnant with the couple's second child.

La Delfa said Lisa-Marie, now 8, is proud of her unusual origins.

"I joke with her that her big ears come from her donor," La Delfa said.

---



TL;DR version - many countries in Europe have severe restrictions on sperm/egg donation, IVF, and surrogation.

Not sure what to say about this, other than it pisses me off that there are so many places that have archaic views on reproductive rights.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis
User avatar
emceng
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Zamfir » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:33 pm UTC

I found that a bit of a weird article. It switches between talking about "Europe" and individual countries, while it appears pretty obvious that there is no "European" view of fertility treatments. On topics like these, Europe is just a bunch of independent coutnries, each with their own laws and history.

There's also things like this:
France and Italy both have strong historic ties to the Roman Catholic Church, which forbids IVF, primarily because the procedure may involve the destruction of embryos.

which is as misleading as it gets. France's historic tie with Rome consists of about a thousand years of ignoring the pope in every way, unless the pope is French. While the vatican has lots of influence in Italy, but Italy was for decades the leading IVF centre of Europe, no matter what the pope said.

Overall, its not so much wrong what the article says, more incoherent. Lots of different countries, with different laws, for different reasons. if you want to understand some of it you have to pick one or few similar countries, and write a story on that.
User avatar
Zamfir
 
Posts: 5746
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Diadem » Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:59 pm UTC

I agree with Zamfir. There are some areas in politics or economics where you can talk about "Europe" as if it's a single united entity. This is most certainly not one of them.

Also:
The article wrote:And nearly everywhere in Europe except Ukraine, couples are banned from hiring a woman to carry a pregnancy for them.

This is most certainly false, or at least misleading. I personally know a woman who carried a child for another couple. And judging from the lack of police raiding her house, I'm quite sure what she did was legal. As far as I know this is legal in most European countries. You're just not allowed (here in NL, and I think in most European countries) to do this commercially. Which makes complete sense.

The article does mention several rules that are rage-worthy, I agree there. Particularly that ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. But then again, I've almost never read a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that wasn't rage-worthy. The court's sole function seems to be to repress human rights.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby maxQ » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:10 pm UTC

France and Italy forbid single women and lesbian couples from using artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization, or IVF, to conceive.


I'm not sure of the veracity of a number of those statements. My French sister-in-law, single depending on how you define it, had a number of fertility treatments done, including IVF, as recently as last year. In fact, she insinuated that the U.S. policies were outdated because 100% of her treatments were paid for by the state...

And other statements, like:

For gay and lesbian couples in France, Italy, Switzerland and elsewhere, only one partner can be the child's legal father or mother.


At least in France, this is very misleading as it also applies to HETEROsexual couples who are in a civil union, which is true for a large percentage of relationships today. It's a legal hurdle more than a social one.
maxQ
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:59 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby sardia » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:35 pm UTC

There are reasons to restrict artificial insemination or sperm donations. Many donors are repeat donors and most people only want high end donors like rocket scientists or doctors. The result is often that one male donor will father 80 or a hundred kids. Kids who don't know their half siblings are, which could lead them to interbreeding. This almost happened in the US, I think they found out before they got married though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/healt ... wanted=all
sardia
 
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Zamfir » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:07 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:The article does mention several rules that are rage-worthy, I agree there. Particularly that ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. But then again, I've almost never read a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that wasn't rage-worthy. The court's sole function seems to be to repress human rights.

Personally, I am wiling to accept a lot from the ECHR when they err on the side of letting countries choose their own path, even when I disagree with the particular thing.

In the end, the authority and position of the ECHR is somewhat shaky. It' not an organ of a country, not even of the EU, so countries can withdraw or at least ignore them if the general feel in the country is that a locally important issue is at stake. The appointment of judges is also perhaps potentially a bit too sensitive to politicking, unavoidably given its super-national nature.

In that light, its very defensible that the court sticks to the uncontroversial side (as seen from individual countries), and only make hard judgements on very clear cases. There's simply not enough of a basis for an activist ECHR, in either its power or its resilient legitimacy. It would either lose its authority as countries start ignoring the court, or countries would start stacking the court, US supreme court style.
User avatar
Zamfir
 
Posts: 5746
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby johnny_7713 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:45 am UTC

Diadem wrote:Also:
The article wrote:And nearly everywhere in Europe except Ukraine, couples are banned from hiring a woman to carry a pregnancy for them.

This is most certainly false, or at least misleading. I personally know a woman who carried a child for another couple. And judging from the lack of police raiding her house, I'm quite sure what she did was legal. As far as I know this is legal in most European countries. You're just not allowed (here in NL, and I think in most European countries) to do this commercially. Which makes complete sense.


Maybe this is a language issue, but "couples are banned from hiring a woman" to my comprehension means that commercial child-bearing (there's a better word for that in English I think) is illegal, not that not-for-profit child-bearing is. As you mentioned in the Netherlands you can ask another women to carry your child for you, and probably even pay for her expenses, but you are not allowed to pay her.
johnny_7713
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Outchanter » Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:12 am UTC

It doesn't make sense to ban gay couples from using donated sperm/eggs, but single parents are a different issue. Children have the right to be supported by both parents (in the case of gay couples, one biological parent and one effectively adopted, non-biological parent) but anonymous sperm/egg donation to a single parent destroys that right.
There are π kinds of people in the world.

Outchanter/Octarine/The Grail (Name/Favourite Colour/Seeking)
User avatar
Outchanter
 
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC
Location: South African in Americaland

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby emceng » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:12 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:It doesn't make sense to ban gay couples from using donated sperm/eggs, but single parents are a different issue. Children have the right to be supported by both parents (in the case of gay couples, one biological parent and one effectively adopted, non-biological parent) but anonymous sperm/egg donation to a single parent destroys that right.


Um, why do children have a right to support? What if the father died while the child is still in utero? Or more fundamentally, how does anyone have a right to support from someone else?
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis
User avatar
emceng
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Diadem » Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Diadem wrote:The article does mention several rules that are rage-worthy, I agree there. Particularly that ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. But then again, I've almost never read a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that wasn't rage-worthy. The court's sole function seems to be to repress human rights.

Personally, I am wiling to accept a lot from the ECHR when they err on the side of letting countries choose their own path, even when I disagree with the particular thing.

In the end, the authority and position of the ECHR is somewhat shaky. It' not an organ of a country, not even of the EU, so countries can withdraw or at least ignore them if the general feel in the country is that a locally important issue is at stake. The appointment of judges is also perhaps potentially a bit too sensitive to politicking, unavoidably given its super-national nature.

In that light, its very defensible that the court sticks to the uncontroversial side (as seen from individual countries), and only make hard judgements on very clear cases. There's simply not enough of a basis for an activist ECHR, in either its power or its resilient legitimacy. It would either lose its authority as countries start ignoring the court, or countries would start stacking the court, US supreme court style.

The problem is that the ECHR still claims the moral superiority that comes with its position and name. It has a very high status. If it's purpose is to rubber-stamp existing legislation, then stop calling it the ECHR. I understand your point. But if the ECHR has no power and authoritity to affect real change, then it should just be abolished. No court is better than a powerless court.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Zamfir » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC

There's stil a benefit if the ECHR acts with authority in some cases, strong cases. Just as the UN is a valuable forum for international politics, even though it doesn't solve each and every crisis. If it tried to force a solution to every crisis, it would not just fail, but also lose the position it has now. The better can be the enemy of the good.
User avatar
Zamfir
 
Posts: 5746
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Diadem » Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:40 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:There's stil a benefit if the ECHR acts with authority in some cases, strong cases. Just as the UN is a valuable forum for international politics, even though it doesn't solve each and every crisis. If it tried to force a solution to every crisis, it would not just fail, but also lose the position it has now. The better can be the enemy of the good.

All true. I'm just not sure the ECHR counts as 'the good'. And remember, the mediocre and the bad are also enemies of the good.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister
User avatar
Diadem
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:45 pm UTC

Pretty sure the ECHR is supposed to be 'the better' in this situation- better to have it than nothing at all.

Outchanter wrote:It doesn't make sense to ban gay couples from using donated sperm/eggs, but single parents are a different issue. Children have the right to be supported by both parents (in the case of gay couples, one biological parent and one effectively adopted, non-biological parent) but anonymous sperm/egg donation to a single parent destroys that right.
I was raised by a single parent and I never felt like any of my rights were violated. Can you elaborate please?
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.
maybeagnostic
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Роберт » Wed Apr 18, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:It doesn't make sense to ban gay couples from using donated sperm/eggs, but single parents are a different issue. Children have the right to be supported by both parents (in the case of gay couples, one biological parent and one effectively adopted, non-biological parent) but anonymous sperm/egg donation to a single parent destroys that right.

Odd argument.

Why say that children have right to two parents, but not that they have a right to a mother and father? It seems like you realize it's frowned on to discriminate against homosexuals but think it is perfectly okay to discriminate against single parents. Not that Nadya Suleiman was a good thing.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby johnny_7713 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
Outchanter wrote:It doesn't make sense to ban gay couples from using donated sperm/eggs, but single parents are a different issue. Children have the right to be supported by both parents (in the case of gay couples, one biological parent and one effectively adopted, non-biological parent) but anonymous sperm/egg donation to a single parent destroys that right.


Um, why do children have a right to support? What if the father died while the child is still in utero? Or more fundamentally, how does anyone have a right to support from someone else?


I'm pretty sure that in the Netherlands you can be forced to provide financial support for a biological child, even if you had no contact after the moment of conception. I'm not sure how it works for sperm/egg donors but I do know children of donors have the right to learn the name(s) (and possibly contact details) of their genetic parent(s), for want of a better word.
johnny_7713
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 1:31 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

I, for one, think these types of treatments should be banned. The world is over populated already, as it is. Why should people be making the problem worse? Never mind using the public purse to and our advanced technology to make the problem worse.

You want a kid? Adopt a poor ethnic baby. Make the world a better place instead of worse.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.
nitePhyyre
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Xeio » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

Wait, wouldn't the same logic apply to banning sex?
User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Роберт » Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:50 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:Wait, wouldn't the same logic apply to banning sex?

Just sex without BC if you already have 1 biological child. If people have no more than 2 biological children each, the population will not grow.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Xeio » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:06 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:
Xeio wrote:Wait, wouldn't the same logic apply to banning sex?
Just sex without BC if you already have 1 biological child. If people have no more than 2 biological children each, the population will not grow.
I didn't see any such stipulation in the banning of artificial insemination that nitePhyyre mentioned.
User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
 
Posts: 4411
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby maybeagnostic » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:11 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:I, for one, think these types of treatments should be banned. The world is over populated already, as it is. Why should people be making the problem worse? Never mind using the public purse to and our advanced technology to make the problem worse.

You want a kid? Adopt a poor ethnic baby. Make the world a better place instead of worse.
Most European countries have had negative rates of natural increase for a while now. Birth rate for the middle class and higher population is even lower in those countries than the average. Trying to tackle overpopulation with that demographic is kind of pointless.
T: ... through an emergency induction port.
S: That's a straw, Tali.
T: Emerrrgency induction port.
maybeagnostic
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 3:34 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby DSenette » Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:There are reasons to restrict artificial insemination or sperm donations. Many donors are repeat donors and most people only want high end donors like rocket scientists or doctors. The result is often that one male donor will father 80 or a hundred kids. Kids who don't know their half siblings are, which could lead them to interbreeding. This almost happened in the US, I think they found out before they got married though.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/06/healt ... wanted=all

i think the reason that that event made the news sow quickly is because of how extremely rare a possibility that is. unless you've got some links stored away that show more than that one occurance?

might be better to suggest that sperm/egg banks diversify their storage by trading supplies across the country/world more frequently? but restricting artificial insemination or sperm donations is a little silly compared to the probability of the thing you're trying to prevent
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")
DSenette
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: Reproductive rights in Europe

Postby Роберт » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:05 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:
Роберт wrote:
Xeio wrote:Wait, wouldn't the same logic apply to banning sex?
Just sex without BC if you already have 1 biological child. If people have no more than 2 biological children each, the population will not grow.
I didn't see any such stipulation in the banning of artificial insemination that nitePhyyre mentioned.

Right, but his reasoning was "overpopulation". If you are limiting EVERYONE's ability to make biological kids, you don't need to make the limit 0 to avoid overpopulation. In fact, that would be detrimental.
addams wrote:Politics is hard. I can't do it.
It takes a nasty Jr. High School Girl in a man's body to keep up.
Роберт
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC


Return to News & Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bibet and 4 guests