WHO: Single People Who Struggle to Find A Partner To Be Considered “Infertile”
I’m taken aback by some of the cranky comments by people who disagree with this decision. Take for example this (source):
Josephine Quintavalle, from Comment on Reproductive Ethics added: “This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman.
Well, excuse the hell out of me, Ms. Quintavalle, but some of us find ourselves single by circumstance – we had hoped to be married in our 20s or 30s but just could not find the right guy. I cannot get pregnant now because I have no husband to have sex with to get pregnant, by, HELLO.
You’re saying women like me shouldn’t be able to get help we need or want in having a kid of our own, if that is what we want (I never cared if I had one myself or not, but some women really want one). There is just no sympathy from some people for the circumstances other people find themselves in in life. I didn’t plan on turning out single well into my 40s, lady.
I don’t think that adult singleness should be thought of in a derogatory fashion as a “disability” (God knows we get enough of that condescending attitude from churches as it is), but I don’t see anything wrong with it pertaining to allowing singles who want to have kid.
I’m also seeing one or two commentators who assume that single adults are more “selfish” than married couples, which is untrue and is (Link): the reverse!
By Rhett Jones
For the WHO’s Dr. David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this move is about creating medical equality. He says, “(Link): The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.”
…Dr. Adamson adds that, “It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner.” For countries with government provided healthcare and public funding for IVF procedures, this could have significant ramifications.
Replied a guy named UkeleleDan, in response to a guy who thinks it’s a stupid idea:
1. You don’t understand natural selection.
2. It’s not about giving priority but equal opportunity to everyone who wants to have a child but don’t have the option.
3. Adoption for single people is an extremely difficult option to pursue. Same for gay couples. The “traditional values” types are still firmly entrenched.
Comment from that page by Funky Chipmunk:
It is not stupid. The definition of family has evovled during the last 3 decades and it cannot longer be reduced just as a the simplest and biblic definition of “man and a woman bound by marriage”. The idea is not to destroy the “normal” families, or to steal the chances for a couple to have a child, but instead to give more chances to single people who still wants to raise a family.
And I’m sorry, but natural selection has nothing to do with this. MIllions of kids are being raised right now by single moms/dads, grandmothers/fathers parent’s friends, social security services and so on… Natural selection only works to provide the species the best mechanism to survive, and that’s what’s going on.
Another guy, p51d007, on that page said:
“More crock of sh*t from the looney left, to promote the homosexual agenda”
He clearly missed the portions that talked about HETERO women who are single, unable to find a partner, who’d like to have a kid. This is not just about a “homosexual agenda.”
But the new definition [of infertility] will now extend to heterosexual single men and women, and gay men and women who don’t have partners, but want to become parents.
The redefined standard will be sent to health ministers next year, which is likely to place pressure on the NHS to change its policy on those eligible for IVF treatment.
But the decision was branded ‘absurd nonsense’ by critics and raised concerns that couples with medical infertility could lose the chance to have children. (Link):
Until now, infertility – the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex – was not considered a disability.
But now in dramatic move the World Health Organisation will change the standard to suggest that a person who is unable to find a suitable sexual partner or is lacking a sexual relationship to have children – will now be equally classified as disabled.
WHO says the change will give every individual “the right to reproduce”.
Under the new rules, heterosexual single men and women and gay men and women who want to have children will now be given the same priority as a couple seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.
But critics branded the new laws as “absurd nonsense” arguing that the organisation has overstepped the mark by moving into social matters rather than health.
…Josephine Quintavalle,from Comment on Reproductive Ethics added: “This absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman.
Single men and women who have not found a sexual partner to have children with will be classed as “infertile,” the World Health Organization is to announce.
In a move that dramatically changes the definition of infertility, the WHO will declare that it should no longer be regarded as simply a medical condition.
The authors of the new global standards said the revised definition gave every individual “the right to reproduce.”
Until now, the (Link): WHO’s definition of infertility —which it classed as a disability—has been the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex.
But the new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner could be considered an equal disability, (Link): The Daily Telegraph reports.
(Link): Hypocrisy: Conservative Christians / Catholics Pressure Women To Feel Their Only Worth is in Becoming Mothers, But If Women Try to Use Medical Technology to Get Pregnant, the Women Are Condemned by The Same Groups
(Link): Un-Happy Father’s Day!