"Are you kidding me?" / Facepalm Thread.

[techres]

No. Not at all. "As designed" a hetero couple can conceive, things just aren't working as they are suppose to.

"As designed" the gay/lesbian couple could NEVER conceive.

You cannot separate "as designed" and "supposed to" when all you actually know is the state of infertiillty. Even at a religious angle, to imply they are different is to claim the intent of the designer. If the designer is the genetic code, then the body is, in fact, acting as designed and being infertile as it is "supposed to" at a genetic level. To fix that is what the insurance does even with very, very unnatural levels like invetro.

If that type of infertility is covered, then I can see the argument that the other should be as well.

If the answer to the one that cannot conceive due to a partner's lack of functioning sperm is, "lady, find you a guy with some good sperm" (which is what you are suggesting they tell the lesbians) - then that must also be the answer to the infertile couple where the husband has failing sperm. And is that really the answer you plan to give him?

Seriously, you can make the argument that infertility should not be covered, but you cannot claim "design" vs "working correct" vs "mind control" vs "get another partner" when it comes to infertility and medical insurance.

 

[jamil]

Eric, I can't believe I figured that one out. Google image search is amazing.

And while searching, I landed on this, which seems seem appropriate here.


Women Against Non-essential Grooming

In other words, they stopped shaving.

Okay. I totally misinterpreted Wang. I guess I'm gonna need to hang out where the millennials do to keep up with slang words that now mean something else.

 

[jamil]

You cannot separate "as designed" and "supposed to" when all you actually know is the state of infertiillty. Even at a religious angle, to imply they are different is to claim the intent of the designer. If the designer is the genetic code, then the body is, in fact, acting as designed and being infertile as it is "supposed to" at a genetic level. To fix that is what the insurance does even with very, very unnatural levels like invetro.

If that type of infertility is covered, then I can see the argument that the other should be as well.

If the answer to the one that cannot conceive due to a partner's lack of functioning sperm is, "lady, find you a guy with some good sperm" (which is what you are suggesting they tell the lesbians) - then that must also be the answer to the infertile couple where the husband has failing sperm. And is that really the answer you plan to give him?

Seriously, you can make the argument that infertility should not be covered, but you cannot claim "design" vs "working correct" vs "mind control" vs "get another partner" when it comes to infertility and medical insurance.

Yes. You can.

 

[JettaKnight]

Yes. You can.

+1


Plus, I can't imagine that the "turkey baster treatment" is all that expensive. Stop trying to get other people (i.e. health insurance) to pay for everything you want. Maybe you also want them to pay all the adoption costs in those cases. When we dealt with infertility we considered it our own burden. (Now we're just saving a bunch off money on birth control).

...Which you all might want your health coverage to pick up that tab for those that worry about it. Because if I extend Techres's logic, I shouldn't have to pay for it because if I was in gay relationship I won't need it because it'd be functioning by design.

 

[printcraft]

Okay. I totally misinterpreted Wang. I guess I'm gonna need to hang out where the millennials do to keep up with slang words that now mean something else.

You need to work on your Wang slang.

Luckily we still have Dong to keep things on the level.

[video=youtube;oXZVogXPAr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZVogXPAr4[/video]

 

[JettaKnight]

You need to work on your Wang slang.

Luckily we still have Dong to keep things on the level.

[video=youtube;oXZVogXPAr4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZVogXPAr4[/video]

You need to keep up. We're all watching a new Dong these days.

 

[TopDog]

Yes. You can.

+1


Plus, I can't imagine that the "turkey baster treatment" is all that expensive. Stop trying to get other people (i.e. health insurance) to pay for everything you want. Maybe you also want them to pay all the adoption costs in those cases. When we dealt with infertility we considered it our own burden. (Now we're just saving a bunch off money on birth control).

...Which you all might want your health coverage to pick up that tab for those that worry about it. Because if I extend Techres's logic, I shouldn't have to pay for it because if I was in gay relationship I won't need it because it'd be functioning by design.

++1

Unless I completely misunderstand this entire subject (which is always possible). It just sounds to me like they are trying to scam the insurance company.

 

[2A_Tom]

Next they will want birth control provided.

 

[BogWalker]

If two homosexual men want to conceive but can't what's the insurance company gotta pay for then?

 

[printcraft]

THESE ARE THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF OUR DAY!

 

[Ericpwp]

So if I was a single man wanting to procreate, my insurance company would have to pay for a woman for me?

 

[2A_Tom]

Practice?

 

[pudly]

++1

Unless I completely misunderstand this entire subject (which is always possible). It just sounds to me like they are trying to scam the insurance company.

No. You have it exactly right. They are trying to claim payment on a situation that is not in the insurance contract by redefining a key term to fit their desires after the fact. It is fraud.

 

[Suprtek]

You cannot separate "as designed" and "supposed to" when all you actually know is the state of infertiillty. Even at a religious angle, to imply they are different is to claim the intent of the designer. If the designer is the genetic code, then the body is, in fact, acting as designed and being infertile as it is "supposed to" at a genetic level. To fix that is what the insurance does even with very, very unnatural levels like invetro.

If that type of infertility is covered, then I can see the argument that the other should be as well.

If the answer to the one that cannot conceive due to a partner's lack of functioning sperm is, "lady, find you a guy with some good sperm" (which is what you are suggesting they tell the lesbians) - then that must also be the answer to the infertile couple where the husband has failing sperm. And is that really the answer you plan to give him?

Seriously, you can make the argument that infertility should not be covered, but you cannot claim "design" vs "working correct" vs "mind control" vs "get another partner" when it comes to infertility and medical insurance.

Umm wut? Did you really just say that? If you did, then I won't attempt any argument because you can't argue with the insane.

 

[jamil]

So if I was a single man wanting to procreate, my insurance company would have to pay for a woman for me?

This man is thinking.

But why not two?



What if you're a single mormon?



Disclaimer: Not trying to disparage or poke fun at anyone's religion. Just carrying it out to the humorous extreme.

Umm wut? Did you really just say that? If you did, then I won't attempt any argument because you can't argue with the insane.

He not only said it. He said it twice.

 

[jbombelli]

[video=youtube_share;sFBOQzSk14c]http://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c[/video]

 

[printcraft]

Two men can't conceive a child by design .... No matter how furiously the rub their swords together IT JUST DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY..... BY DESIGN.

 

[jbombelli]

Two men can't conceive a child by design .... No matter how furiously the rub their swords together IT JUST DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY..... BY DESIGN.

Don't you oppress them!

 

[actaeon277]

Well, this person switched genders, and now wants the British government to pay to switch him/her back.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...iticises-NHS-lack-psychiatric-evaluation.html

 

[Ericpwp]

This man is thinking.

But why not two?

That would definitely bankrupt them!