I feel pretty comfortable saying this is the best stupid comedy I've ever seen. Also, it's the best film ever made about Donor Insemination (and I think I might be the first person to ever say that).
The trailer doesn't do it justice. This is a special movie. It's very dark, very smart and super well-shot. Starring Will Arnett and Will Forte (with Kristin Wiig), written by Will Forte, directed by Bob Odenkirk.
Showing posts with label Bioethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bioethics. Show all posts
Monday, May 25, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Nice Gait!
I have a theory.
When an attractive woman walks by and a man turns around to check her out from behind I don't think he's so much looking at her ass so much as he's checking out her gait. That's right. He's determining how sturdy and even and dependable her carriage is for - you guessed it - child bearing. (Wow! I totally just took it there.)
For those of you
still reading...this is exactly what slave-owners did when sizing up a slave and determining whether he or she was worthy of purchase. Same goes for horses and work animals. I mean, I understand no guy thinks, "I'm going to check out her gait," or, "Nice carriage," but I just mean to say that there is a primitive, deep-seated biological imperative behind turning to observe a woman after she's just passed by on the street. (Okay, I immediately concede that my girlfriend and most of my female friends won't ever take me seriously again but...I'm taking this one for the blog).
When an attractive woman walks by and a man turns around to check her out from behind I don't think he's so much looking at her ass so much as he's checking out her gait. That's right. He's determining how sturdy and even and dependable her carriage is for - you guessed it - child bearing. (Wow! I totally just took it there.)
For those of you
still reading...this is exactly what slave-owners did when sizing up a slave and determining whether he or she was worthy of purchase. Same goes for horses and work animals. I mean, I understand no guy thinks, "I'm going to check out her gait," or, "Nice carriage," but I just mean to say that there is a primitive, deep-seated biological imperative behind turning to observe a woman after she's just passed by on the street. (Okay, I immediately concede that my girlfriend and most of my female friends won't ever take me seriously again but...I'm taking this one for the blog).
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Should There Be State/Federal Regulation of Medically Assisted Fertility Practices?
I was asked to participate on a panel on OPB's Think Out Loud this past February (on my birthday, incidentally) to discuss whether or not there should be state or federal regulation of reproductive technologies. In short, my answer is an unequivocal "yes." The mother and her OHSU doctor on the program did not agree with me; PSU bioethicist Patricia Backlar did agree with me.
What do you think?
http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/limiting-fertility/
After the program, the show's host April Baer called me to do a follow-up interview for the show's blog (I think she did this because I was given the least amount of air-time). Baer told me that after the program the guest mother and her doctor told her that what I had said about the numbers of UK and Swedish donors returning to "normal" levels within five years of federal laws compelling all donors to make their identity known was false. Baer wanted my response to that.
I sent her the two following articles legitimizing my claim:
The first link is to a 1995 medical abstract concerning Swedish donor numbers post-federal legislation outlawing donor anonymity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8583002?dopt=Abstract
An excerpt from the abstract says:
"This data shows that there has been an increase in number of donors being recruited, suggesting that the possibility of future contact by genetic offspring has not had the negative impact on the availability of donors predicted."
And the second link is to a UK.gov 2007 article titled "Number of sperm donors up following anonymity law changes" which states, "Many commentators continue to claim that the change in the law to remove anonymity for sperm and egg donors would lead to an immediate and steep fall in the number of donors. These new figures show that the predicted drop in sperm donor numbers is a myth.":
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/1523.html
The problem with trusting American doctors on this subject is that they (perhaps understandably) don't want the federal government telling them how to conduct themselves (not to mention the fact that the medically-assisted fertility business is a multi-billion dollar a year industry). But the issues are far larger and more important than the American Medical Association's freedom from legislation. It is government's responsibility to protect its citizen's best interests from the, sometimes, depersonalized interests of industry.
I'm confident that minimal legislation can be passed here in the U.S. protecting both the future children's right to know their own genetic lineage (and thus themselves) while still providing the much needed fertility services to women like the mother who was on the show with me. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
What do you think?
http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/limiting-fertility/
After the program, the show's host April Baer called me to do a follow-up interview for the show's blog (I think she did this because I was given the least amount of air-time). Baer told me that after the program the guest mother and her doctor told her that what I had said about the numbers of UK and Swedish donors returning to "normal" levels within five years of federal laws compelling all donors to make their identity known was false. Baer wanted my response to that.
I sent her the two following articles legitimizing my claim:
The first link is to a 1995 medical abstract concerning Swedish donor numbers post-federal legislation outlawing donor anonymity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
An excerpt from the abstract says:
"This data shows that there has been an increase in number of donors being recruited, suggesting that the possibility of future contact by genetic offspring has not had the negative impact on the availability of donors predicted."
And the second link is to a UK.gov 2007 article titled "Number of sperm donors up following anonymity law changes" which states, "Many commentators continue to claim that the change in the law to remove anonymity for sperm and egg donors would lead to an immediate and steep fall in the number of donors. These new figures show that the predicted drop in sperm donor numbers is a myth.":
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/en/
The problem with trusting American doctors on this subject is that they (perhaps understandably) don't want the federal government telling them how to conduct themselves (not to mention the fact that the medically-assisted fertility business is a multi-billion dollar a year industry). But the issues are far larger and more important than the American Medical Association's freedom from legislation. It is government's responsibility to protect its citizen's best interests from the, sometimes, depersonalized interests of industry.
I'm confident that minimal legislation can be passed here in the U.S. protecting both the future children's right to know their own genetic lineage (and thus themselves) while still providing the much needed fertility services to women like the mother who was on the show with me. It doesn't have to be one or the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)