I Get Mail – Habermas’ Six Reasons Why Christianity is Real »« You Did Not Give Your Son Autism, You Bought Into Quackery

California does not Fail Biology, You Do

This one’s from Political Hat who simply doesn’t get why a simple law came into being

Where do babies come from?  For most sane and rational people, the answer is that a man engages in reproductive sex acts with a woman.  The California Grand SovietLegislature, however, doesn’t seem to understand that:

The word you are looking for is Politburo Comrade. It you are going to accuse the rather centralist right wing government of the USA as being akin to the Soviet Union then at least make sure you use the appropriate terminology.

“A bill signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown on Tuesday ensures that insurance coverage for fertility treatments granted to heterosexual couples will now be extended to unmarried and homosexual couples.

“The law was authored by Tom Ammiano (D., San Francisco) who thinks that denying fertility coverage to unmarried and gay couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. ‘Reproductive medicine is for everybody’s benefit,’ Ammiano said in a statement. ‘To restrict fertility coverage solely to heterosexual married couples violates California’s non-discrimination laws. I wrote this bill to correct that.’ Insurance coverage for fertility treatment usually kicked in only after couples attempted natural conception for a year.”

Assemblyman and blithering idiot Tom Ammiano explicitly says that:

“Infertility – the state of being unable to produce offspring – is defined in state law. Under current law, insurers are required to offer coverage for infertility and, when purchased, that coverage is subject to non-discrimination in insurance laws.”

TLDR – GLBT people and the Unmarried should have access to fertility treatments.

     No.  That is not how making babies work.  Two people of the same sex can not conceive a child.  This is not infertility.  This is biological reality; this is NORMAL.  It has to do with the most fundamental differences between the sexes.  A lesbian couple or a gay couple will never be able to have a child between them because they are biologically incapable due to the fact that they are both of the same sex.

How do you know? Have you been reading biology textbooks instead of your “Shield of Christ” abstinence guides?

No. It means that artificial insemination that is part of infertility treatments is available. You do realise that there are sperm donors? Some men sell their sperm to sperm banks where people can use the sperm for artificial insemination. Some GLBT couples ask a friend or hire a surrogate to carry their babies. Some may use a third party donor egg or even an egg from the friend (obviously female) and rather than have sex they may opt for artifical insemination which isn’t as fun but is a lot more scientific.

Neither will any man who’s testicles were blown off in Iraq or Afghanistan but I don’t see you forcing his wife or girlfriend to leave him. And I will point this out to you.

My girlfriend has PCOS and is effectively sterile. Does that mean our love is for naught? That we cannot adopt (And I do intend to adopt) a child and give a child a chance? Just because a child is not perfectly genetically yours doesn’t mean that they aren’t family or that they cannot be loved or love back.

But here is the thing, science CAN give us a baby if we so choose. It’s just as unnatural and weird and ungodly as any baby created for a lesbian or a gay couple. In fact more so. After all, the problem with lesbians and gay men is the problem of logistics. Sperm A functions, Egg B functions it’s just that the pipeline cannot be laid and so you require airlift.

In this case Sperm A functions, Egg B functions and Uterus B does not due to a disorder that causes hormonal imbalances that prevent implantation. That’s biological. That is also 100% biological reality.

And yet if we chose to have such a miraculous child, then surely it’s just as blasphemous. Or is the only person who can have one mother and no actual father Jesus?

Previously, insurance coverage would not “kick in until couples have tried to conceive naturally for 12 months. That’s not possible for same-sex couples.” Well DUH!!!

This is a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex couples.  When it comes to making babies, gay couples are fundamentally unequal to straight couples.

As are me and Hera.

So if a GLBT couple put in for artificial insemination and got a donor then waited 12 months for a slot how would you know they were trying? Are you suggesting we straight people submit evidence of shagging in order to get coverage? Is it photos or videos you will be wanting?

Look honestly? The problem is you don’t understand this. GLBT only really conceive through artificial insemination and/or surrogacy. (Okay not the Bi people but let’s keep to the argument). So they have a use for the procedure which you seek to deny them because they cannot naturally have conceptional sex which is the same in couples with sterility issues. Just going to treat these lesbians are women who have husbands who sperm issues and these gay men as men who have a wife with uterine/ovarian issues and treat them as such.

Honestly? The reason we say “try for a year” is because many couples think that every act of coitus results in pregnancy which is not the case. 50% of all pregnancy ends in spontaneous abortion. So try for a year and if that doesn’t work then maybe it’s time to run tests.

However if for example you know you have a pre-existing condition then they would not wait the year. What’s the point of waiting a year when you know the man’s had testicular cancer resulting in loss of testes. He can still have sex but he is firing the blankiest blanks of all time. Why on earth would you wait a year. That seems stupid.

Same for the GLBT really.

     This isn’t “H8″ or animosity.  This is basic biological reality.

No it’s stupidity. H8′s idiot cousin.

     The fact that two people of the same sex can’t have a baby does not prove that either is infertile.  The same-sex couple choose not to engage in reproductive acts.  The ability of either one to not be able to produce offspring is not a disability or a medical problem to be addressed.  It is normal and natural that two people who don’t engage in reproductive acts won’t actually reproduce.

Medicine is not just dealing about organic problems but social ones too. The biggest contribution to mortality in India is poverty. It’s a medical issue and thinking of ways to stop poverty saves lives just as effectively as me going out there and tossing VIt A around.

     This would be no different than if a man and a women were deemed “infertile” for trying to have a baby while only engaging in sodomy and oral sex!

I actually know of a couple that had that problem but their real problem was a total lack of education. After a brief safety lecture and telling them that there is nothing wrong with it, my friend sent them on their merry way. 10 months later they delivered a beautiful baby and named it after my friend because they were so grateful. And to our knowledge they never stopped having sex the “incorrect” way. Nothing wrong with sodomy if everyone involved thinks it is fun. There is a reason why people do it.

Medical suggestion though? First remove the stick.

The biggest cause of infertility is psychological. Men and women who cannot bring themselves to have sex with an individual. To force a lesbian or a gay man to have sex against their biological urges is frankly rape. They don’t want to have sex but they do want to have a baby. Now we have technology that lets us do just that. I would suggest the GLBT adopt since there are hundreds of thousands of young children without loving families but some people want their kids to be genetically related and frankly that’s their choice. I don’t think love only affects children because of their genetic similarity and I know plenty of children who received nothing but love despite being adopted. I also know many hateful and terrible parents who abandoned their children or who chained them up and beat them or raped their kids despite their kids being related to them.

We are so worried about what genitals a person has that we forget that the genital part of being a parent lasts maybe 15 to 20 minutes (1 hour if you are lucky…) but the rest of it lasts nearly a lifetime. If we judge the validity of people as parents by the 20 minutes rather than the lifetime then we are fools.

     It is the Progressive Left that are DENIERS when it comes to basic science.  It is the Progressive Left that are ANTI-SCIENCE.  It is the Progressive Left that deniesREALITY ITSELF.

One finds that the Right wing’s excessive love affair with Gay Bashing born out of a Jesus fetish really is a lot more anti-science than suggesting the GLBT get scientific medical help in conception on their insurance policies.

Not every GLBT couple wants kids so it’s not even an economic concern.

     It begs the question:  If the rabid Left so believe in “equality” that they are ready to pass a law that blatantly invalidates reality itself, what other delusions are they foisting upon us all?

California is now imitating a Monty Python skit:

I don’t think you quite get the point of Monty Python. A incredibly secular comedy group that routinely took the piss out of conservative Britain through surrealist comedy. They would be on the side opposing you.

In my office there is a machine, a machine that invalidates reality. It’s my little heartbreaker.

It stops hearts. You see when there is a fibrillation the heart contracts randomly and uncoordinatedly so blood does not flow properly. If we stop the heart dead and hope that the pacemaker cells are still functional they will return the heart’s rhythm to normal.

This invalidates reality. The reality that young men and women should die of heart disease. That men and women who would have died from the reality of a spasming heart should now live. It’s my zombie machine, born out of the laboratory of Frankenstein and animating the very recently dead back to the living using tame lightning.

It’s just a defibrillator but frankly if you spin it right anything we do sounds unnatural.

We are the most unnatural creature in all of the earth. The most impossible to believe. In a world of experience only we can come up with boredom. We fly through the air in aeroplanes and speak to each other over the internet and Polticalhat thinks something as measly as artificial insemination is unnatural and unreal.

Comments

  1. Dave, ex-Kwisatz Haderach says

    My sister has PCOS too, and her hubby has practically useless sperm. Their adorable baby is just about 3-months old. Fuck yeah science!

  2. ibbica says

    It’s my zombie machine, born out of the laboratory of Frankenstein and animating the very recently dead back to the living using tame lightning.

    Weird to say, maybe, but that has to be the most beautifully poetic description of a defibrillator that I’ve ever heard :)

    (Great post in its entirety too, btw! Just had to express my appreciation of that particular gem.)

  3. says

    It means that artificial insemination that is part of infertility treatments is available.

    However if for example you know you have a pre-existing condition then they would not wait the year.

    Basically, this. The Political Hat post reads like it’s written by someone who only knows one thing (the definition of infertility) and not much else about these treatments.

    Sperm A functions, Egg B functions it’s just that the pipeline cannot be laid and so you require airlift.

    And yet if we chose to have such a miraculous child, then surely it’s just as blasphemous. Or is the only person who can have one mother and no actual father Jesus?

    This made me smile.

  4. dangerousbeans says

    GLBT only really conceive through artificial insemination and/or surrogacy.

    actually there are cases of lesbian/gay couples where one parent is trans*, who have conceived a child the conventional way.
    there are also lesbian and bi women who have kids via boring old PIV sex, just not with their regular partners.

  5. says

    Referring to the Christian faith as a ‘Jesus fetish’ doesn’t serve your argument very well. Neither does the condescending, superior tone you assume towards those with whom you disagree. Further, insofar as I know, Christ never addressed the issue of artificial insemination. He did, however, address the issue of love at great length, so maybe you have Him confused with your cardboard conception of both the faith and the Man.

    California is confronted right now with a staggering fiscal crisis. Its unemployment rate is (and has been) the highest in the nation. Its schools are now performing worse than those of Mississippi. Its once green and fertile Central Valley has been reduced to a Grapes of Wrath-like wasteland. Because of decades of extravagant pensions and runaway spending, California cities such as Oakland, San Bernardino, and Stockton are desperate for fundamental city services such as fire and police departments. State infrastructure is falling apart: freeways, streets, bridges. Its heavily regulated and taxed business environment is considered the least favorable in the nation, and as a result, businesses (and people) are leaving the state in droves–Nevada and Texas, particularly. But hey, you’ve got great weather and I understand the beaches are beautiful–which is nice, I guess, for those Silicon Valley and Hollywood elite types who can afford it. I also understand you’re spending billions on a high-speed rail system. Good luck with that.

    Anyway, with all this going on, California state legislators are spending their time ensuring gay people are insured for fertility treatments, which neither I nor anyone else but California legislators consider a pressing problem demanding immediate action. Unlike, say, everything else going on there.

  6. Ysanne says

    Troy,
    guess what, gay people (and unmarried couples) probably find this a wee bit important, and as much as you’d like to ignore it, they count as “someone”.

  7. says

    Ysanne,

    Guess what? It really doesn’t matter how important some gay couples find the issue. California is in crisis. Cities are going bankrupt. Unemployment is sky-high and will in all probability go higher still. The state is bleeding businesses, jobs, and talented, hardworking people by the thousands every day. Its infrastructure is disintegrating, especially in the state’s interior, away from the wealth concentrated on its coast. My point is that a more sane and less ideological state legislature would be prioritizing, devoting its time to addressing these pressing and–in some cases–existential issues.

    Personally, I have no problem with gay couples trying to conceive and raise families, whether through adoption or artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization. That’s entirely their business. I have two (now young adult) children of my own and consider parenting the highlight of my life and wish that joy on others. However, there are some problems that simply do not demand an immediate government solution, especially if there are much, much bigger problems to address and time is short. And from what I’ve read, seen and heard, for California, time is very short indeed.

  8. Chaos Engineer says

    My point is that a more sane and less ideological state legislature would be prioritizing, devoting its time to addressing these pressing and–in some cases–existential issues.

    The root cause of California’s problems is that there’s insufficient tax revenue, and this has been difficult to fix because raising taxes requires either a supermajority of the legislature or a referendum. That said, there’s apparently a growing understanding of just how crippling the revenue shortfall has become and steps are finally being taken to address it – I was just reading an article about how things have started to get better over the past few years. Link: Jerry Brown’s Tough-Love California Miracle.

    But even if the legislature wasn’t able to get supermajority votes for anything, they could still work on passing good legislation that only requires a majority vote. Making sure that insurance companies don’t violate anti-discrimination laws is good legislation, and it’s pretty cheap to implement.

  9. says

    So your solution to California’s problems is to raise taxes? You do realize that one of the major reasons large and small businesses are leaving California for more business-friendly states and that the number of small business startups in California are per capita among the lowest in the nation is because of the high taxes and draconian regulatory burdens imposed on those businesses, right? You do understand that the private sector–business-and not government is the engine of economic growth? You do realize that if you tax any given human activity like, say, starting a business, then there will be less of it? No, the key to growth is lower taxes and a less onerous regulatory burden, but I strongly doubt the ideologues currently running either California’s state government or our federal government would ever publicly acknowledge that very fundamental fact.

    You wrote that fertility treatment coverage for gay people would be cheap to implement. Cheap for whom? Whose money are you talking about? Taxpayers, to pay for the new regulatory and enforcement regime to ensure that coverage is provided? Those who will have to pay higher premiums in order to add this state-ordered aspect of coverage? The shareholders of the insurance companies?

    Money isn’t free. It adds up. If you’re going to spend it on anything, you might try something that might actually save your state from economic disaster.

  10. Chaos Engineer says

    You do understand that the private sector–business-and not government is the engine of economic growth? You do realize that if you tax any given human activity like, say, starting a business, then there will be less of it?

    That’s only true if you assume that the tax money vanishes from the economy forever. If it’s used to make good investments in education or infrastructure, then the economy will grow and more businesses might be started in spite of the taxes.

    If you want to drill down into the revenue problem further: For the past few decades the economy has been set up so that wealth is being transferred from poor and middle class people to wealthy people. This causes problems because poor and middle class people tend to spend almost all of their income and create economic activity. Wealthy people tend to hoard more of their income, which reduces economic activity.

    So if you tax a rich person, and spend the money educating poor children so that they can grow up to work on public infrastructure projects and earn middle-class salaries, you’ve grown the economy in all sorts of different ways. Then the rich person can tap into this growth by, say, opening a nice restaurant or a car dealership in a previously-impoverished neighborhood.

    Of course, the rich person could decide to leave California and move to Backlash, Alabama or some other low-tax backwater. But this raises the question: Why are so many rich people chosing to live in California in spite of the taxes? I’ll argue that it’s because of the infrastructure and human capital that taxes create.

    (Missing all of this is a common libertarian fallacy: Libertarians have difficulty seeing things at anything other on an individual level. So they think “I don’t want to pay taxes, because then I-as-an-individual will have less money.” but not “My tax money is used to improve society-as-a-whole, which in turn elevates my individual standard of living in various direct and indirect ways.”)

    You wrote that fertility treatment coverage for gay people would be cheap to implement. Cheap for whom? Whose money are you talking about? Taxpayers, to pay for the new regulatory and enforcement regime to ensure that coverage is provided? Those who will have to pay higher premiums in order to add this state-ordered aspect of coverage? The shareholders of the insurance companies?

    The regulatory and enforcement regime is already in place. So – for taxpayers – the cost of adding one new regulation is pretty low.

    Under the old regulations, gay people were overcharged for medical services: They had to pay out-of-pocket for their own fertility treatments, but their insurance premiums partly covered other people’s fertility treatments. The new regulations balance the costs more fairly.

    If the shareholders have been making sure that their businesses respect basic human rights, then they’re already following the new regulation and won’t be affected by it.

  11. says

    I dislike the use of the word ‘investment’ when you’re talking about taking tax dollars from people who know far better than any government how their money should be spent. If objective evaluation is used to determine the value of California state government ‘investments’ in such areas as education and infrastructure, then California–with its Mississippi-level schools and disintegrating infrastructure–really needs to fire its ‘investors’ and replace them with people who actually know what they’re doing. Again: California is currently confronting a fiscal crisis that dwarfs even that of Illinois, its nearest ‘competitor’ for title of Most Boned. That crisis won’t be solved by raising taxes–an action which will only result in an acceleration of a trend that’s been going on for years; i.e., the exodus of job-producing, capital growing businesses (and people) upon which every economy–city, state, country–relies upon for its tax base. What you’ll be doing is (over) taxing those producers who haven’t yet packed their bags and left. And many of them will pack their bags and leave. Hello, Texas. Hi, Nevada.

    I’m not a libertarian, by the way. I’m a fairly traditional, free-market approach kind of guy. Insofar as gay people are concerned, from the purely political standpoint of citizenship, they should only be viewed as people, fellow citizens. I personally don’t care about the sex lives of other consenting adults. With whom they choose to live and be with romantically and raise families with is entirely their business–not mine, not the state’s, not anyone’s. It should not, in my view, be considered as anything other than a private, not public matter. Thus, I don’t think you can frame this as a ‘human rights’ issue. It’s about insurance companies questioning the seeming incongruity of fertility treatments for gay people. Thus, instead of focusing on the gender preference of those who need or want such insurance, frame it instead as ‘fertility treatments for anyone seeking it’, and your argument in that regard might have validity.

    Anything can be insured for a price. Let those who want coverage in certain areas pay that price.

    Meanwhile, the good ship California continues to sink. Consider yourself in the band, playing the same old tired tune as it goes under the waves.

  12. says

    I precisely needed to thank you very much all over again. I’m not certain the things that I would have undertaken in the absence of those methods documented by you over such situation. It previously was the fearsome setting for me personally, however , taking note of this expert form you dealt with it forced me to leap with joy. I am just happier for the service and as well , have high hopes you know what a powerful job you were getting into educating most people by way of your websites. I’m certain you’ve never met all of us.
    analqnyj_chlen.kittin.ru

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>