It\'s not our fault...
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89

Thread: It\'s not our fault...

  1. #1

    Default It\'s not our fault...

    ...that we can\'t have babies.

    I was listening to BBC Radio 5 yesterday or possibly the day before and there was a news item on the use of artificial insemination (or whatever the cleaner, sharper moniker for it is these days). It turns out that if a person is too fat or too thin then they are not eligible for the service of A.Ins from the NHS unless they can show a dedication to improving their physical condition for carrying a child and subsequently looking after the poor thing. This is irregardless of any relationship the person might be in, but i\'ll come to that in a mo.

    Single mothers can apply for the service and will be accepted if deemed fit. I can see the point, but I\'m still undecided.

    However - and this boggles my mind - the NHS will now allow lesbian couples the treatment and give them the means to have bables through A.Ins absolutely free. On the face of it it\'s nice to see the UK at least becoming more progressive, but under the surface the whole thing falls apart.

    If a fella in a relationship with a lady is infertile and the couple want a child and have the devotion and energy to do so, I can see the A.Ins as a good thing. There are babies popping out everywhere and in the care of some right arseholes, but a well thought out bit of fertility treatment/A.Ins with the right folk is surely a decent thing. But who should pay?

    To get back to the radio broadcast, the BBC interviewed a lesbian who is pushing for the treatment as she and her lady are ready for a child but, in her own words, says we aren\'t able to have babies, but that\'s not our fault....

    :o

    :o

    No shit, Sherlock!

    Of course you can\'t have babies in a lesbian relationship! Neither would you in gay relationship between men! I was utterly miffed when I heard her comments and I can\'t help but feel the NHS is making a huge cock-up here. My National Insurance is going to be used - in however small a part - to allow same-sex couples the chance for kids! Surely such a service should be private and funded by the wannabe parents? I\'ve no issue with the matter morally IF the folk do it through their own pockets, but through our own money? I may even extend that to other folk as well, male-female, single mother or whatever in the larger sense of it all, as it\'s not the state\'s fault or the N.I. paying folk\'s fault they can\'t have kids or won\'t enter a biological relationship to have one.

    I don\'t know what else to say :(

    Edit: Actually I do know what to say - humans are intrinsically selfish and think everybody owes them lol

    I think there should be certain levels of help through the NHS and my money would be taken from me at least with me being happy if the system was right. By that I mean a proper vetting service and not faddish nonsense.

    And I changed a little part of my text from the initial post as I thought about the issue on the toilet just now :D

  2. #2

    Default

    Well I am on your side Rev. In Oz the same thing has happened already. I mean if someone want to make a valid lifestyle choice of being in a gay relation ship then hey should take the consequences of that relationship which is that they cant have children. I would say the same for a single mother. If you want a child go find a fella otherwise too bad. If that is your lifestyle choice you dont get to have kids.

    I mean welfare here is outa control so I wouldnt support either case. :cussing:

  3. #3
    Superfreak!!! Sand Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    6,818
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    My take on it is if NHS is going to pay for one couple to go through the treatments, then they should pay for the other couple to go through them as well - otherwise the NHS is making a moral judgement on the validity of one way of life over the other.

    Personally I dont think that either couple should be able to get the procedure without having to pay for it.

  4. #4

    Default

    Originally posted by steelcult
    My take on it is if NHS is going to pay for one couple to go through the treatments, then they should pay for the other couple to go through them as well - otherwise the NHS is making a moral judgement on the validity of one way of life over the other.

    Personally I dont think that either couple should be able to get the procedure without having to pay for it.
    Exactly! It\'s a health service, not judge and jury for the most recent of moral issues. I\'m still miffed lol

  5. #5

    Default

    That is a bit screwy Rev. But then again. I don\'t want kids. I can\'t have anyone screwing around with my toy money. lol

  6. #6

    Default

    As fertility rates drop in society it makes sense for governments to protect fututre tax revenue by helping those who want children to do so.

    In New Zealand you get two courses (used to be one) of treatment paid for after that it\'s up to you. This means those who have little chance of success are on their own.

  7. #7

    Default

    Message original : steelcult

    Personally I dont think that either couple should be able to get the procedure without having to pay for it.
    If I understand your point correctly, that means only rich people should be eligible to be helped to have children...
    I\'m afraid that as long as you haven\'t feel first hand the distress of people wanting kids and being unable to do so, you can\'t realise how painfull this situation is.
    I\'m not sure one choose to be gay so why should they take the consequences if they can do otherwise. It\'s the same for single and ugly women with bad temper: why should they roam pubs, trying to drunk heathy men into making her pregnant if science can protect the dignity of humanity from this?

  8. #8

    Default

    My take on this whole situation is that if the government is going to pay for the treatments, then anyone needs to be eligible. Regardless of relationship status. They have no right to make what is essentially a moral call.

    However, that being said, I don\'t agree with In Vitro Fertilisation being paid for by the health service. It\'s not a life saving/quality of life improving operation. Maybe I have a different viewpoint coming from a country where HIV is rampant and the health service can\'t cope. If these people want to have children, why don\'t they consider adoption. I understand wanting to have your own flesh and blood, but there are enough unwanted children in this world that could do with a loving family. Hell, i wouldn\'t consider IVF, and neither would my wife. If we want kids and it turns out we cant have them naturally, adoption will be the way to go. Biology isn\'t all that important.

    [/gets off soapbox]

  9. #9

    Default

    Originally posted by Hoblit


    [/gets off soapbox]
    At least you have clean feet!

  10. #10
    Superfreak!!! Sand Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    6,818
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Originally posted by Astorderire
    Message original : steelcult

    Personally I dont think that either couple should be able to get the procedure without having to pay for it.
    If I understand your point correctly, that means only rich people should be eligible to be helped to have children...
    I\'m afraid that as long as you haven\'t feel first hand the distress of people wanting kids and being unable to do so, you can\'t realise how painfull this situation is.
    You are making an incorrect assumption here - that I am in a realtionship were we would have no issues having children if we so desired. But since I\'m not and desire children, I do understand completely the kind of despiration these people have. But, as Hoblit says, with the number of children out there that are up for adoption, why should the government pay for this procedure for anyone?

    Yes, there is a need for basic, affordable healthcare in most industrialized nations - but specialty procedures that are not life saving or do not improve the quality of life do not in my opinion fall into that category - and AI is a specialty procedure that some, if not all of the cost of should be born by the individuals involved, not society as a whole, again in my opinion.

  11. #11

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by reverend
    I can\'t help but feel the NHS is making a huge cock-up here.
    LOL - Intentional?
    But I agree - if lesbians want a baby - why not just get drunk and get laid the old fashioned way?

    I mean if they have a close friend (Similar problems as with surrogacy I\'d imagine - which is also a viable option) why not just ask them to... \"Assist\"

    I have several lesbian friends - most of whom I\'d be MORE than happy to help in that department :P

  13. #13

    Default

    Originally posted by Hoblit
    If these people want to have children, why don\'t they consider adoption. I understand wanting to have your own flesh and blood, but there are enough unwanted children in this world that could do with a loving family.
    In a lesbian relationship, where exactly is the flesh-n-blood thing anyway? A child can only be brought to term inside one womb, unless they want to take an egg from one woman and stick it inside the other. What a cock-up, indeed.

    Things were so much simpler, before human duties and responsibilities were forgotten in lieu of human rights.

  14. #14

    Default

    From what I can gather from the new NHS IVF guidlines, is that more couples will be eigible for the treatment than before. I think the way it was run before was based on postcodes and whether the local NHS offered the free treatment.

    The biggest controversy with the new guidlines is that obese women will not be eligible.

    ** edit.... forgot to say... in total agreement with you rev


  15. #15

    Default Too much information Rev...

    Originally posted by reverend
    And I changed a little part of my text from the initial post as I thought about the issue on the toilet just now :D
    I wouldn\'t argue with any of your points either. In fact, I probably have stronger views than you:innocent:

  16. #16

    Default

    Originally posted by reverendIt turns out that if a person is too fat or too thin then they are not eligible for the service of A.Ins from the NHS unless they can show a dedication to improving their physical condition for carrying a child and subsequently looking after the poor thing.
    This also happened with adoption, one man who was 20stone and his wife (cant remember her weight but was large) wanted to adopt but were turned down for being unfit. Apparently as the child gets older the parents will need huge amounts of energy to care for the child, so, therefore must be fit and slim. the bloke was apparently devastated but the couple wanted the child so much they drastically changed there lifestyles to slim down.
    These people couldnt have children but were so determined to have one that they drastically changed there own lives so they would be ellegible, and all around we see children being badly treated by people who dont love there kids, and care homes full of children. It makes me think sometimes the wrong people are allowed to have children.

  17. #17
    Superfreak!!! Torn blue sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Under your bed.
    Posts
    7,214
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    This whole argument is totally fu*ked up!
    A point made earlier refers to the adoption of children. Thats obviously too clever for our goverment, who are too intent on wasting our NI and Taxes on shitty little crusades for PC!!!
    Solve two problems at once by having people who can\'t have kids adopt. No payouts for IVF, less spent on foster care and regardless of the weight issue- an obese couple could adopt a child older than the \"high energy\" toddler cycle.

    Oh wait...I think I hear the PC police at my door. They really don\'t seem to aprove of rational and latteral thinking do they?!
    I suppose i\'ll be told that i\'m a \"Bad bad man\", treated to tea and cakes and thrown in one of those 4 star hotels of theirs....Fuc*ers :mad:

  18. #18

    Default

    Originally posted by Hoblit
    However, that being said, I don\'t agree with In Vitro Fertilisation being paid for by the health service. It\'s not a life saving/quality of life improving operation.
    Originally posted by steelcult
    Yes, there is a need for basic, affordable healthcare in most industrialized nations - but specialty procedures that are not life saving or do not improve the quality of life do not in my opinion fall into that category - and AI is a specialty procedure...
    I\'m afraid I must disagree with this opinion that in vitro fertilisation does not improve the qaulity of life. While I am young and don\'t have any children myself, nor have given any serious thought to having children, I do know that having children can be an extremely important and meaningful thing for many people. The right to \'found a family\' is also one of the basic human right in the UN declaration on human rights I believe. Being in a situation where one cannot have children can be a very traumatic and devaluing experience. For these reasons, I believe that fertility treatments should definately be considered as offering an improvement to quality of life.

    From what I understand, fertilisation procedures can be very expensive. Denying people the chance to have children - whether as a result of infertility, same-sex relationshops or whatever - simply because they cannot afford the medical procedure/s, seems unfair and unjust to me. So I support any decisions made to offer financial aid to those seeking such procedures.

    Just the way I see things, in any case! I understand that some of you don\'t agree; that\'s fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

  19. #19
    Superfreak!!! Sand Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Austin Texas
    Posts
    6,818
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

    Where does one draw the line then? If I have a right to found a family, do I have the right to force someone else to carry that baby, because my partner can\'t?

    Why should I as taxpayer be responsible to see to it that you can breed successfully?

    And if it is everyone\'s \"right\" to found a family and have children, then where does the government get the \"right\" to withhold the treatment from the obese or thin? Certainly they have as much right to the treatment that would, as you state, improve their lives as a thin couple, a socailly acceptable couple or a lesbian couple.

    And I am pleased to find out that I and my partner are devalued as human beings simply because we cannot have children - funny, I thought my value as a human being came from me not from my ability or lack there of to evolve successfully by continuing my line.

  20. #20

    Default

    I\'m sorry, I didn\'t mean to say that people who can\'t have children are devalued - I jsut meant that certain people could feel that way through family pressure or cultural expectation etc. Of course I don\'t think that being unable to have children decreases anyone\'s value, that is certainly not true - I apologise if it sounded that way, it\'s not what I meant.

    And the othe issues you raised, well I don\'t know - it\'s a complex issue, I don\'t think anyone has all the answers. But I agree with you that people shouldn\'t be discriminated against due to being overweight, underweight etc.

    I don\'t think that you should be responsible as a taxpayer to see that people can breed sucessfully, as you put it, but I think that people shouldn\'t be denied the chance due to lack of finances.

    I don\'t claim to have all the answers, I was jsut offering a thought.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Privacy Policy  |   Terms and Conditions  |   Contact Us  |   The Legion


Copyright © 2001-2018 CMON Inc.

-->