First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply lesbian couple sues over fertility treatment
11364 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 8/8/16
If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.
52945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



That where we come in bro! -winks- (singing) We come to save the day~ In other word we can make baby with hottie Lesbians! j/k
52945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



nevermind I just checked their picture...They're not attractive bro! >.<


24567 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/16
Oh Lord... LOL. Nah they could never get some unless it was whiskey dick.
11364 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 8/8/16

JanusCascade wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



nevermind I just checked their picture...They're not attractive bro! >.<




Lesbians never attracted me. I want the persons in question to actually be attracted to me.
52945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/16 , edited 8/8/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



nevermind I just checked their picture...They're not attractive bro! >.<




Lesbians never attracted me. I want the persons in question to actually be attracted to me. :(



I'm sure lot of women are attracted to you bro! Heck I'm sure you got lot of ladies on Forum in love with you heh.

Btw how the heck did you resize that image?
52945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
100 / M
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

MysticGon wrote:

Oh Lord... LOL. Nah they could never get some unless it was whiskey dick.



Hahaha, yea it does take over 12 cases of Beers or more! XD lol
9140 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
AKR
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

JanusCascade wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



That where we come in bro! -winks- (singing) We come to save the day~ In other word we can make baby with hottie Lesbians! j/k


17/10 Made me laugh!
17695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:



I'm not blaming anyone I am stating facts. Two women are incapable of having children with one another. Your just butthurt I stated simple facts of this universe you would like to ignore.


I'm not butthurt over that, but if I gave the appearance of so, I apologize. No, what does upset me is that you're consciously blaming the couple over a clause that may discriminate against them, but moreso by the solution of "choosing" not to be gay, and blaming them for their own circumstances.

Facts that you've missed that numerous people have said.

-You can choose to act on homosexual desires, but it is unrealistic to not do so, because sexual attraction isn't something we can currently change now. I suppose in the future with gene expression this'll go away, but it isn't here. Asking someone to seek a new boyfriend, particularly of a sex they don't find attractive, is just stupid. If anything, they (probably) already have a sperm donor in mind.

If anything, the insurance company doesn't understand that two females can't reproduce, or that the clause of sexual intercourse of two years is seemingly prone to errors and downright luck.


They choose to be gay which means they cannot have children together. It takes some people years of constant trying to get pregnant. It makes sense that insurance would require you to keep trying for several years since childbirth can take a while at times.

However this specific situation sounds like the fault of the doctor for not checking to see if fertility treatments would even work, which you would think would be step 1, then promising that she could get reimbursed. I bet nothing was written down so the doctor will probably deny it and the woman won't have any proof. I doubt this will turn out well.

- "We can currently change" you mean with drugs and whatnot? Probably not by injecting yourself with foreign chemicals. Sexual attraction is completely controllable and can be changed by merely modifying some chemicals and chemical signaling in your brain, signaling is most important.

- Lesbians can either try the same as everyone else or adopt. If they really want a child then they are going to have to be with a man or pay him to be a sperm prostitute. Why should they get special rules when they aren't willing to put in as much effort as normal couples?
11364 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Online
Posted 8/8/16 , edited 8/8/16

Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:



I'm not blaming anyone I am stating facts. Two women are incapable of having children with one another. Your just butthurt I stated simple facts of this universe you would like to ignore.


I'm not butthurt over that, but if I gave the appearance of so, I apologize. No, what does upset me is that you're consciously blaming the couple over a clause that may discriminate against them, but moreso by the solution of "choosing" not to be gay, and blaming them for their own circumstances.

Facts that you've missed that numerous people have said.

-You can choose to act on homosexual desires, but it is unrealistic to not do so, because sexual attraction isn't something we can currently change now. I suppose in the future with gene expression this'll go away, but it isn't here. Asking someone to seek a new boyfriend, particularly of a sex they don't find attractive, is just stupid. If anything, they (probably) already have a sperm donor in mind.

If anything, the insurance company doesn't understand that two females can't reproduce, or that the clause of sexual intercourse of two years is seemingly prone to errors and downright luck.


They choose to be gay which means they cannot have children together. It takes some people years of constant trying to get pregnant. It makes sense that insurance would require you to keep trying for several years since childbirth can take a while at times.

However this specific situation sounds like the fault of the doctor for not checking to see if fertility treatments would even work, which you would think would be step 1, then promising that she could get reimbursed. I bet nothing was written down so the doctor will probably deny it and the woman won't have any proof. I doubt this will turn out well.

- "We can currently change" you mean with drugs and whatnot? Probably not by injecting yourself with foreign chemicals. Sexual attraction is completely controllable and can be changed by merely modifying some chemicals and chemical signaling in your brain, signaling is most important.

- Lesbians can either try the same as everyone else or adopt. If they really want a child then they are going to have to be with a man or pay him to be a sperm prostitute. Why should they get special rules when they aren't willing to put in as much effort as normal couples?


They choose to act on homosexual desires, and asking them to do otherwise is completely unrealistic. I believe they probably do have a sperm picked out, the main factor being that they are subjected to a 2 year attempted impregnation period which shouldn't apply to them since lesbians nor gay men can reproduce. To ask them otherwise when this is not the case is stupid, and to ask them to sleep with a man, which may be what you're referring, is also stupid.

In any case they filled the perquisites of attaining sperm presumably (Otherwise why have the case?), the only question left is, can the insurance company skip that line of 2 year impregnation period, rely on a doctors note, and subsidized or pay in full those fertility treatments?

In any case, this could apply to heterosexual couples too by asking any member of the union to outright have sex with another woman. I think. Let me think this over.
4668 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
UK
Offline
Posted 8/8/16
Well that clause does not work with same sex couples However there are ways around it. They can arrange to have a donor and use the turkey baster AI method. Guys can arrange co-parenting options with a woman to have and raise a child or children. Not all gay procreation choices are stuck with fertility clinics.
17695 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 8/8/16 , edited 8/8/16

PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


Rujikin wrote:



I'm not blaming anyone I am stating facts. Two women are incapable of having children with one another. Your just butthurt I stated simple facts of this universe you would like to ignore.


I'm not butthurt over that, but if I gave the appearance of so, I apologize. No, what does upset me is that you're consciously blaming the couple over a clause that may discriminate against them, but moreso by the solution of "choosing" not to be gay, and blaming them for their own circumstances.

Facts that you've missed that numerous people have said.

-You can choose to act on homosexual desires, but it is unrealistic to not do so, because sexual attraction isn't something we can currently change now. I suppose in the future with gene expression this'll go away, but it isn't here. Asking someone to seek a new boyfriend, particularly of a sex they don't find attractive, is just stupid. If anything, they (probably) already have a sperm donor in mind.

If anything, the insurance company doesn't understand that two females can't reproduce, or that the clause of sexual intercourse of two years is seemingly prone to errors and downright luck.


They choose to be gay which means they cannot have children together. It takes some people years of constant trying to get pregnant. It makes sense that insurance would require you to keep trying for several years since childbirth can take a while at times.

However this specific situation sounds like the fault of the doctor for not checking to see if fertility treatments would even work, which you would think would be step 1, then promising that she could get reimbursed. I bet nothing was written down so the doctor will probably deny it and the woman won't have any proof. I doubt this will turn out well.

- "We can currently change" you mean with drugs and whatnot? Probably not by injecting yourself with foreign chemicals. Sexual attraction is completely controllable and can be changed by merely modifying some chemicals and chemical signaling in your brain, signaling is most important.

- Lesbians can either try the same as everyone else or adopt. If they really want a child then they are going to have to be with a man or pay him to be a sperm prostitute. Why should they get special rules when they aren't willing to put in as much effort as normal couples?


They choose to act on homosexual desires, and asking them to do otherwise is completely unrealistic. I believe they probably do have a sperm picked out, the main factor being that they are subjected to a 2 year attempted impregnation period which shouldn't apply to them since lesbians nor gay men can reproduce. To ask them otherwise when this is not the case is stupid, and to ask them to sleep with a man, which may be what you're referring, is also stupid.

In any case they filled the perquisites of attaining sperm presumably (Otherwise why have the case?), the only question left is, can the insurance company skip that line of 2 year impregnation period, rely on a doctors note, and subsidized or pay in full those fertility treatments?


Well THEY shouldn't try for 2 years since it might be impossible but others should be subject to that same period if they want a kid. If they don't want to do such a thing then don't try having a kid, adopt.

I doubt that doctor is willing to admit he failed to check to see if she was even able to get pregnant. That's a pretty big blunder there. It's common sense to see if you can even perform a procedure before doing it.
Posted 8/8/16
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

JanusCascade wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


JanusCascade wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

If anything, I'm upset that this clause is here when it shouldn't, for both heterosexual couples and homosexual relations.

Because of the fact that lesbians can't reproduce.



nevermind I just checked their picture...They're not attractive bro! >.<




Lesbians never attracted me. I want the persons in question to actually be attracted to me. :(



I'm sure lot of women are attracted to you bro! Heck I'm sure you got lot of ladies on Forum in love with you heh.

Btw how the heck did you resize that image?


I wasn't gonna say anything about their looks
but LOL, I thought they were sisters
15959 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 8/8/16

Hrafna wrote:


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.