Nature is not "corrected." One cannot correct something that cannot be
proven to be wrong. It can merely be circumvented. One does not
necessarily have a right to circumvent nature. Hence, if I want to
black out the sun (circumventing nature) and I have the technology to
do so, I do not have a "right" to do so. It is not a womens right to
attempt to reproduce at a geriatric age simply because technology may
give the opportunity to do so. If any right exists at all it can only
be assumed from the lack of any law expressly forbidding said right.
Back to the blocking out the sun example. There is no law that says
expressly says I cannot black out the sun. That still does not mean I
have a right to do so. Your concept of rights is extremely flawed. The
women in question most likely used some sort of fertility method to
reproduce. The law could say that doctors cannot provide these methods
to women who could not reasonably be expected to carry and produce a
healthy child. This women could not, at conception, reasonably expected
to give birth to a healthy child. If she does give birth to a healthy
child is irrelevant, because an occurance that has such a small chance
of happening cannot be reasonably expected to happen. Further
clarification of such a law would state reasonably in terms of
percentages. No doctor would provide fertility service to a women that
would put him at risk of liability. Just because technology exists does
not give a person a right to use said technology to achieve any means
that they want.

That is all beside the point. My point was, and continues to be that
such behavior is morally reprehensible. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE BEHAVIOR
HAS TO BE ILLEGAL. Are you capable of understanding this? I guess not,
since you could not make that distinction this entire time. Just
because someone cannot be prosecuted with a crime, does not mean their
action was moral or ethical. Actually, in the US, a doctor could be
sued and maybe even criminally sanctioned from providing this service.
Especially if the women dies in labor or the child is born with a
disorder that will cost a lot of money (which will most likely be the
governments money due to the fact that the majority of women this
womens age cannot support a child with a severe disability that
requires constant medical treatment).

You would be well advised to cease to use a patronizing tone with
people when your abilities to think LOGICALLY and READ WITH
COMPREHENSION are obviously extremely flawed.
Learn to think, dear....

J



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/29/05 1:41:09 AM ---