Conference turris::womannotes-v3

>> What do you think???
        
        If the government stayed out of medicine, then there
        wouldn't be a problem here.  It would be a simple,
        private transaction between the couple and the IVF
        providers.
        
        Secondly, my understanding of the technologies involved
        is that artificial imsemination is usually sufficient
        here, and the more complicated (and more expensive) _in
        vitro_ fertilization has a much lower success rate.  If
        IVF is *necessary* here then it is for physiological
        reasons and not for the anonymity of the donor and is
        within the "intended" scope of the program in anyones
        definition.  If AI would do then perhaps IVF was chosen
        either to press the issue or because it is funded.  Did
        the program address AI as an alternative to IVF?
        
        Dan
        

    What's the problem?
    
    Choice?  Baloney.  The Lesbians didn't choose to be Lesbians, they just
    are.
    
    Take the case of a married heterosexual couple.  Let's say that the
    wife is fertile, but the husband for some reason is not.  Because he
    cannot father children, the couple is considered infertile.  Therefore
    *they* would be elligible for this program, right?  But it is still
    their *choice* of life-style that makes it impossible for them to have
    a child - that is, they have chosen monogamy.  
    
    A *couple* is considered infertile if between the *two* of them they
    cannot bear a child.  It doesn't matter if one or both of them is
    fertile alone, if the *couple* cannot concieve, the couple is
    infertile.  (There are cases where both a male and a female are
    fertile, but the female's body rejects that *particular* male's sperm,
    and so even though she could get pregnant with another male, she is not
    able to get pregnant by that specific male.)
    
    So, if the law says that any *couple* that can't conceive gets
    supported by this program, then these women should get supported.  They
    are a couple who *can't* conceive (it isn't a choice not to conceive.)
    
    As for the issue of whether they already have kids - does it matter? 
    I have no idea how the medical system in your country works.  But if
    heterosexuals with two kids can't get into the program, then neither
    should these Lesbians.  On the other hand, if heterosexuals with two
    kids *can* get in, why shouldn't Lesbians???
    
    And, like Dan said, why do they require IVF and not just AI?
    
    D!

    G'Day,
    
    	I see I'm not the only person that note's on a Sunday night
    (yesterday for me).
    
    	I don't know why they are opting for IVF.  I'm not sure what the US
    version of 60 Minutes is like but the Aussie one has been known to get
    the facts a little wrong or to leave out other pertinent issues just to
    increase the contoversy level to attract more viewers.
    
    	Diana makes the point that they are basically an infertile couple
    and I agree but don't forget the other issue that I mentioned, ie. they
    are both receiving the supporting mother's pension because they are not
    a couple.  Surely they can't expect to be treated like a couple so they
    can have the baby and then both expect to receive the pension because
    they are not.   I think I'd be much happier with the situation if they
    were allowed to have the child but then one of them should be able to
    work while the other looks after the kids during the day instead of
    blatently ripping off the tax payers of Australia (God knows we've got
    enough doing that already - we don't need any more).
    
    	It will be interesting to see other's reactions to this.
    
    David.
    
    

    >	I see I'm not the only person that note's on a Sunday night
    >(yesterday for me).
    
    Can you say: notaholic??
    
>don't forget the other issue that I mentioned, ie. they
>    are both receiving the supporting mother's pension because they are not
>    a couple.  Surely they can't expect to be treated like a couple so they
>    can have the baby and then both expect to receive the pension because
>    they are not. 
    
    Well, like I said, I'm not familiar with Australia's laws and economy,
    etc, so I will speak of the US - I imagine the situation is similar. 
    At any rate, similar criticisms have been made of gays here.  
    
    In an ideal world, I agree with you - gays should be treated as a Real
    Couple, with all that entails (even if it means no "single mother"
    tax/pension benefits.)
    
    However, this *isn't* an ideal world.  I am sure, even in Australia,
    there are more benefits to being a Couple than just access to this IVF
    program.  At very least, there is social acceptance, etc, for
    heterosexual couples.  In the US we have thing like: insurance and
    other employment benefits for the spouse (like being able to take leave
    if s/he is sick or to be relocated with the one working), being legal
    next-of-kin in case of accident or death, right to sue for
    alimony/child custody in case of divorce, etc, etc.  A million
    advantages to being a official recognized couple.  Our society (and by
    "our" I mean "Western society") is set up to encourage couple-hood.
    
    So this Lesbian couple, through a fluke in the law that doesn't
    recognize them as a couple, manages to get *one* of the benefits of
    being single.  But because they actually are a couple, they don't get
    all the (very few) benefits of being single, and they also get very few
    of the (many) benefits of being a couple.  Basically, they are getting
    the worst of all worlds. (At least, they would be in the US...again,
    can't speak for Australia.)
    
    I can't speak for the Lesbians in question, but I know that if I were
    in their shoes, I would gladly give up that "single mother's pension"
    for the right to be treated officially and totally as a couple,
    including all the benfits for such.  But until that happens, I would
    take the flukey benefits of being single that happen my way, and still
    fight for all the couple benefits I can manage.
    
    While gays still do not have the option of being a couple, I do not
    find your argument that they get single benefits, therefore they should
    be denied couple benefits, compelling.
    
    D!

    Lesbian couple or not, I would find it absurd to actively support the
    EXPENSE of in vitro fertilization to assist a couple, already
    supporting two children, to produce yet a third child while living on
    the dole.  This is an example of ridiculousness carried to the extreme. 
    It matters not to me if it is a same sex couple or a hetero couple
    seeking help getting IVF.  It matters not if they truly want another
    child to make official their couple hood or whatever.  To actively
    bring another life into their family that they cannot support, or are
    unwilling to support, but that would have to be supported by public
    taxdollars is unconscionable.
    

    A nitpicky question re .-1, .0:
    Is the "supporting mothers' pension" in .0 really a form of "the dole"?
    
    Bob

    Let's try a hypothetical situation.
    
    Suppose that the couple in question were heterosexual, but one or both
    had suffered some disease which rendered them infertile.  Like the
    actual case in .0, both members of this couple have children from
    previous marriages, but want a child "of their own", and have applied
    for the Australian government-assistance IVF program.
    
    How does that feel to y'all -- any different?
    
    As I see it, the remaining difference is the question of being "on the
    dole".  
    
    In my mind, using that to decide whether someone should receive
    government support for any type of medical care is extremely dangerous.

    A couple of whatever persuasion which has two biological children
    (whether together or from previous families) will contribute to
    overpopulation by having a third. I have trouble believing that's
    something to be encouraged, much less subsidized. (Adoption is
    another matter, unless it's a brokered adoption where the
    pregnancy was specifically initiated for the couple, in which case
    my initial opinion holds.)

    RE: .6
    
    The way the couple mentioned in .0 currently use, and from my
    understanding, intend to go on using the supporting mother's pension, is
    as a sole source of income.  In which case, in my opinion, you could
    call it the dole.  I didn't see the whole program but from the bit I
    caught neither of them had any intention of seeking any sort of paid work
    (correct me if I'm wrong) but were reliant on government assistance.
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with .5.
    
    If ANY couple wants a child but it is physiologically impossible and
    they have to use "artificial" means, good luck to them... BUT (a big, no
    HUGE but)........if they already have children (from whereever) AND
    have no means to support themselves or their children I think it is
    wrong if they are admitted to the program.
                                                                         

This made me hit the brakes hard:

>In my mind, using that to decide whether someone should receive
>    government support for any type of medical care is extremely dangerous.

Please think for a minute what "any" means.  Suppose one of them dislikes the
look of her nose -- plastic surgery is medical care.  Let's assume there's no
anatomical problem here, the motivation is appearance only.

I think it's getting carried away, to make the blanket statement that someone on
the dole cannot be denied *any* medical care.  We're not talking about something
lifesaving, here, like heart valve replacement.  We're not even talking about
something that vastly improves the quality of someone's life, for example
plastic surgery to repair a harelip.

We are discussing a couple who want tax money to pay for extraordinary methods
(and either IVF or AI are not the most common means of conception) so that they
can have a third child to raise.  That they will (to all appearances) then want
to raise said child on the dole merely adds insult to injury.

The dole is (well, should be) there to help people back on their feet, not as
a guarantee of support in whatever life you choose.

Sara

    >Please think for a minute what "any" means.
    
    Oops.  Yes, you've caught me over-generalizing again.  Hold on a
    minute, and I'll try to come back down to earth.
    
    I agree with Sara that the right to cosmetic surgery shouldn't be
    protected in this way.  I think the right to lifesaving care shouldn't
    be based on financial status.  But where *do* you draw the line, then?
    I'm just not sure where I would place the desire for "one's own child".
    
    I'd consider the folks in .0 to be involuntarily infertile at this
    time, even though they already have kids.  If the government has been
    willing to pay for IVF for folks in that situation, even those on the
    dole, in the past, _whether_or_not_ they already have children, then
    I believe that this couple should be entitled to that support.
    
    Bob

    G'Day,
    
    	Re: .6 and the Australian 'Dole'
    
    	The Supporting Mother's Pension is paid to a woman who cannot work
    because she has to stay at home to look after her child(ren).  They are
    supposed to be single (ie not living with anybody that provides them
    with income).  The amount paid is considerably higher than the normal
    dole (unemployment benefit).  There is absolutely no reason why one of
    the women couldn't get a job and support both themselves and the
    children just like any other heterosexual couple.
    
    	Again, from yesterdays Letter's to the editor (you've probably
    guessed I like reading these), there was a letter from a married man
    with two children who takes home $600 per fortnight after tax.  He is
    unable to get any government assistance because he earns $0.60 over the
    threshold.  This $600 is $200 less than these two women get combined
    from the Government for doing no work at all!  That's simply not fair
    in my book.
    
    David.
    

Hmm.  I think I'm about to waffle again:-)

re .12

In .4, D! said:
> While gays still do not have the option of being a couple, I do not
> find your argument that they get single benefits, therefore they should
> be denied couple benefits, compelling.
    
Is the married man who wrote the letter to the editor enjoying some "couple
benefits" that the lesbian couple are not entitled to?  If so, perhaps
(looking at the whole picture, not just the payment from the government)
the lesbian couple are _worse_off_ ?

I just don't know.

Bob

re -->     <<< Note 841.2 by TLE::TLE::D_CARROLL "dyke about town" >>>
                 -< Lesbian couples are, by nature, infertile >-

>    What's the problem?
    
>    Choice?  Baloney.  The Lesbians didn't choose to be Lesbians, they just
>    are.

I wasn't aware that this was commonly accepted fact at this time. As such I
can accept your opinion, but my own opinion may differ. By saying 'they
just are' we often imply they are somehow victims of their circumstances,
or not responsible for consequences of their behavior. There is talk that
alcoholics 'just are', that compulsive sexual offenders 'just are'. But to
the extent they are allowed/encouraged to feel 'just are' they will be
unable to change. If they don't want to change that is their choice, but
lets not suggest there should be no consequence of their choices and the
resulting behavior.

Sorry if this was already covered - I'm only on .2 in this string.

    in re .14
    
    The leaders in modern sexual research do indeed indicate that our
    sexuality is not something we choose to do. It appears to be a
    combination of genetics, prenatal hormonal influences and early
    life experiences.
    
    Bonnie

>By saying 'they
>just are' we often imply they are somehow victims of their circumstances,
>or not responsible for consequences of their behavior.
    
    What color is your hair?  Why is it that color?  Did you *choose* it to
    be that color?  No?  What, then, are you a "victim" or circumstance? 
    Are you not responsible for your actions?
    
    Lesbians and gays are not a "victim" of anything in being who they are. 
    They just are.  It isn't a choice.  Did you "choose" to be
    heterosexual?  Does that make you a "victim of circumstance?"
    
There is talk that
alcoholics 'just are', that compulsive sexual offenders 'just are'. But to
the extent they are allowed/encouraged to feel 'just are' they will be
unable to change. 
    
    Why would Lesbians or gay men or bisexual people *want* to change??? 
    An alcoholic is an alcoholic - they can choose whether to be a
    recovering alcoholic or a not-so-recovering alocholic - if they choose
    not to drink anymore, it is because they feel they are harming
    themselves or others through their drinking!  Sex offenders are harming
    others by definition.  So there is a reason why they would want to not
    do that behavior anymore, because there is something wrong with it.
    
    There is nothing wrong with being a Lesbian - so why should they
    change?
    
If they don't want to change that is their choice, but
lets not suggest there should be no consequence of their choices and the
resulting behavior.
    
    They *can't* change.  A Lesbian is a Lesbian.  If she choses never to
    love or sleep with another woman, she is still a Lesbian.  That isn't a
    choice.
    
    Yes, she chooses to *act* on her Lesbianism - why should that have
    negative consequences??  That's like saying you should "pay" for
    choosing to eat the food you want, hang out with the people you like or
    marry the person you love.  
    
    If there are no "consequences" for being heterosexual, why should there
    be consequences for being homosexual?
    
Sorry if this was already covered - I'm only on .2 in this string.
    
    This (acceptance of gays and Lesbians) has already been covered MANY
    MANY places in this notesfile, and NOTES in general, in valuing
    differences classes and publications, etc.  You, apparantly, were not
    paying attention to any of it.
    
    Do you have any idea how grossly offensive your note is, or why?
    
    D!
    

    re .16 --
    
    The consequences of engaging in heterosexual activity are that you may
    become pregnant.
    
    The consequences of engaging in homosexual activity are that you cannot
    become pregnant.
    
    

    It was clear from .14 that "consequences" were "payment" for doing
    something wrong (as in, the comparison to alcoholics and sex offenders,
    the impetus to "change".)  
    
    So - homosexual sex can't concieve children - that isn't a
    "consequence" (in the sense of the word as a payment, or just
    punishment) so much as a fact of life.  but does that mean homosexuals
    shouldn't be able to have children?
    
    Heterosexuals can use birth control to avoid the "consequence" of
    pregnancy.  Homosexuals should be able to use AI and IVF etc to avoid
    the "consequence" of not being able to have kids.
    
    D!

    -1
    
    Ditto, D, the other note is very offensive..
    
    Heidi

> I wasn't aware that this was commonly accepted fact at this time. As such I
> can accept your opinion, but my own opinion may differ. By saying 'they
> just are' we often imply they are somehow victims of their circumstances,

It's not a matter of victimhood. It's a matter of sexual and affectional
orientation. It's really not all that complicated of a concept.

There are several notes in here that discuss lesbians and bisexual women.
(Jody? ;-) )

Kathy

    
    minor sidetrack here.....
    
    for more in how/why someone is homosexual/heterosexual/etc, please see:
    
    womannotes-v2
    931/932 - FWO/FGD notes on Lesbians and "strate" women
    
    womannotes-v3
    141 - terminology for sexual orientation
    702 - men's response to les-bi-gay issues
    737 - dealing with homophobia and biphobia
    
    human_relations
    929 - are we really okay about gay?
    
    mennotes
    19 - gay and heterosexual gap
    416 - new findings on homosexuality
    
    
    -Jody
    

>    So - homosexual sex can't concieve children - that isn't a
>    "consequence" (in the sense of the word as a payment, or just
>    punishment) so much as a fact of life.  but does that mean homosexuals
>    shouldn't be able to have children?
    
 
	Why a punishment, I see not being able to conceive as a real blessing,
	just think, no longer having to take the pill, or using any other 
	forms of contraception, and being certain you will not become pregnant.

	Bliss.

	Heather

    .14
    
    If you reversed the idea--that is, do you feel heterosexuals 'chose'
    or "just are."
    
    I feel gay people 'just are'; they no more choose than the rest of
    the population chooses to be who they are.
    
    Can't we live and let live?
    M.
    

    I think we might have just witnesses a case of hit-and-run noting.
    
    D!

re .24 - D!

>    I think we might have just witnesses a case of hit-and-run noting.
    
No, this was a case of lunch hour noting. I entered my note yesterday near
the end of my lunch hour, and am entering this one near the beginning.
(Maybe I should say I started preparing this reply at the beginning of my
lunch hour :-). )

re .15 - wmois::reinke_b
    
>    The leaders in modern sexual research do indeed indicate that our
>    sexuality is not something we choose to do. It appears to be a
>    combination of genetics, prenatal hormonal influences and early
>    life experiences.
    
Really - thanks for the info., I haven't been following the research.

re .20? from Jody

Thank you for the pointers - apparently I have some catching up to do.

re .16 - D!

>    What color is your hair?  Why is it that color?  Did you *choose* it to
>    be that color?  No?  What, then, are you a "victim" or circumstance? 
>    Are you not responsible for your actions?

>    Lesbians and gays are not a "victim" of anything in being who they are. 
>    They just are.  It isn't a choice.  Did you "choose" to be
>    heterosexual?  Does that make you a "victim of circumstance?"

I see what you mean about being born (therefore 'just are')
homosexual or heterosexual. Being helpless is one of my personal hot
buttons, so my reaction was to the implication that once a person is born
or raised in a particular environment they are unable to change.

>    They *can't* change.  A Lesbian is a Lesbian.  If she choses never to
>    love or sleep with another woman, she is still a Lesbian.  That isn't a
>    choice.

I didn't know this - difficult for me to accept due to my own hot button
but I'll work on it.

>    Yes, she chooses to *act* on her Lesbianism - why should that have
>    negative consequences??  That's like saying you should "pay" for
>    choosing to eat the food you want, hang out with the people you like or
>    marry the person you love.  

Ah - my examples were poorly chosen in that they conveyed by association
that being lesbian is somehow criminal. I'm really sorry about that - they
were the first other behaviours I thought of where 'I can't change' is
sometimes offered as the reason why the behavior should be tolerated. I
really don't believe that les/bi/gay orientations are criminal or must
merely be tolerated. 
    
>    This (acceptance of gays and Lesbians) has already been covered MANY
>    MANY places in this notesfile, and NOTES in general, in valuing
>    differences classes and publications, etc.  You, apparantly, were not
>    paying attention to any of it.

I accept gays and lesbians - I had several close friends while growing up
that were gay. I didn't share their orientation, but I did share a lot of
good times. I am quite familiar with valuing differences, and I'm pretty
good at it most of the time. But I can see how the bahavior associations I
made could be interpreted to the contrary. I can accept you as an
individual, and could have a working (or personal should the occaision
arise) relationship with you without any hangups.

>    Do you have any idea how grossly offensive your note is, or why?
    
I didn't at the time, but I'm getting the picture. My honest apologies...

    Thanks for rewording your reply in a more sensitive manner, but...!
    
    The underlying and, in my opinion, wrong assumption is still there, and
    that is what I found the most offensive: that these Lesbians (the ones
    under discussion) have to "pay" for being Lesbians by not being able to
    use the resources available to heterosexuals to help them have kids.
    
    I'll state once again that Lesbianism (and homosexuality) is not a
    choice, any more than hair color.  You can dye your hair, but your hair
    will still be the color it always was - only dyed.  It will still grow
    in the original color.  A Lesbian can try to sleep with or fall in love
    with men, but it isn't natural, and it won't CAN'T work.  It has
    nothing to do with HELPLESSNESS!  Once again, the assumption (and no
    matter how nicely you phrase it, you can't get away from this
    assumption) is that Lesbianism/homosexuality is something that one
    would want to "fix".
    
    Do you feel "helpless" about your height?  Your hair color?  Who your
    parents are?  If you are happy about who you are, these things don't
    make you feel helpless because you don't *want* to change them.
    
    Anyway, whether a Lesbian could, through hard work and denying her
    nature, change who she is, is irrelevent.  If we don't ask infertile
    heterosexual couples to marry someone different so that they can have
    kids, why then do we have to say that Lesbians must either change their
    ways or not have kids?
    
    You have to understand something...one of the most frequent things gays
    and Lesbians hear is "You could be straight if you really tried."  It
    isn't true.  We could change behavior till our fingers fell off, but we
    would always be gay or Lesbian.  We would be denying outselves to *act*
    like we were straight.  Yet that is exactly what we get told, again and
    again.  To even imply that we would want to change (you did imply
    that!!  no one brought up the concept of changing until you did!) is
    offensive.
    
    And I'm sorry, as many disclaimers as you put on, I still don't believe
    what you say about you are okay with LesBiGays, but you think "just
    made that way" implies helplessness.  As I said, only negative things
    make you feel helpless!  The concept of helplessness embodies the
    concept of badness.  
    
    D!

re: .25
    
> I didn't at the time, but I'm getting the picture. My honest apologies...

Thanks!

    RE: 25
    
    Apology accepted and appreciated.