Infertility is an actual disability.
In all seriousness, I always wanted to be a rock star. I spent years working hard at it., It was the only thing I wanted to do. It was my dream. It never happened. I didn’t cry like a pussy about it. I didn’t “grieve” it. I manned up and went on with my life. I didn’t lose anything. I just didn’t get what I wanted. I never thought the universe owed me what I wanted or that I was being “deprived” by not getting it. I just accepted it like an adult.
Well, I can’t dunk mainly because I hate soggy doughnuts … but I would love to be able to walk and run like normal people, and not have to hork down pain meds to be functional …
I will never agree to that, no matter what kind of legal definitions people want to cite. I think that’s an insult to people with real disabilities.
Mm, so now people who cry because they can’t have kids are “pussies.” That’s charming.
Infertility is, as demonstrated above, an “actual disability”, objectively demonstrated - it is one under federal law. Whether it is a “real problem” seems to me subjective. You claim it isn’t, and so I must believe it would not be - for you. For someone else, naturally, it may be.
Nonetheless, you are moving goal-posts here. Your original point was that one cannot grieve for what one never had, meaning that any disability, “real” or not, would not “count” for grieving purposes - if you were born with it. Could one then “grieve” for infertility, if one developed it later in life, moreso than one born blind could grieve for a lack of sight? Not being able to grieve for what one never had strikes me as a worthless definition, easily disprovable as contrary to experience and usage.
I do not accept the premise that infertility is a disability. Are all post-menopausal women disabled?
In my life I’ve only been acquainted with two people who were blind since birth, but neither of them seemed to be grieving over their blindness. It really woudln’t make sense for them to grieve, since their blindness has been the normal state of affairs for them their whole life.
They might prefer that they had the ability to see, but that’s not the same as grieving over it.
This is ridiculous. There are lots of disabilities. Some are major and cause significant problems. Some are minor and barely noticeable. My husband is officially a “disabled veteran.” His disability? He lost the vision in his left eye during his service. It doesn’t affect his daily life. (Well, there are very minor inconveniences caused by the loss of sight, but it’s really not that big of a deal.) It doesn’t hurt him, he doesn’t get to park in special parking spaces because of it, and it’s really just almost completely insignificant. His eye should function normally, but it does not. It’s a disability. Is that insulting to people with more problematic disabilities? I have no idea why it would be. I have no idea why you are associating some kind of moral significance to the word “disability.”
For instance, secondary infertility. How about then? Are they allowed to grieve then?
The barren for whom others have sympathy and are, as a result (according to you), emboldened in their self-absorption and entitlement as manifest in grief over the inability to conceive.
It is odd to make such a thing an article of faith. If I did not know you better, I’d assume you had some sort of religious reason for your POV.
I’ve worked with disabled people for 10 years. It’s my job. I don’t think I’ve ever known a person born with a disability to grieve it. To them it’s just normal.
Who, exactly, has done this? What two-or-more posts from different persons are you complaining about?
I am severely visually impaired in my left eye. If I had the same impairment in both eyes, I would be legally blind. I am not disabled. It does not impair my abilities in any significnt way. I am not impressed by legal definitions of disabilities.
I’m not saying that the should be grieving over their lack of sight, only that if they did, I would not be finding it an inherently absurd thing for them to do; they know that they lack a really significant ability that a functionally normal human has (even if they cannot actually experience what it is that they lack), as a result of a fault in their anatomy.
Like the ability to reproduce.
Pick one. You can’t have both.
“The barren?” Heh. and you’re calling me insensitive.
I didn’t insult anybody in this thread or on this board. I made a comment, in the abstract, about a certain kind of behavior, not about the per se condition of infertility.
Yes I can, and I do. I have no impaired abilities, just an impaired eye.
The ability to reproduce is in part a function of age. One acquires it a puberty and loses it (if female) at menopause, in a normally-functioning, non-disabled-by-infertility woman.
A child under the age of puberty and a woman over the age of menopause is not “disabled”, because that age-related functionality (or lack thereof) is part of a normal human biology.