Un-natural Conception

[Katie123987 10]

Yes they should have the right to have children. Drug addicts / alcoholics of this world are having children all the time that aren't planned or don't want in some cases. What gives us the right to stop gay couples that actually want to have children in a stable and loving home form having them??

[PaliRichard 10]

If you don't know it might be best to avoid West Street on a Saturday night.

 

I can assure you there is absolutely no danger of me being on West Street on a Saturday night.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Q: why must the NHS (i.e. HM Government, i.e. taxpayers) provide free IVF anyway?

[Katie123987 10]

Q: why must the NHS (i.e. HM Government, i.e. taxpayers) provide free IVF anyway?

 

Good point if couples can't afford the IVF in the first place how are they going to manage when the child arrives?

[SnailyBoy 10]

Good point if couples can't afford the IVF in the first place how are they going to manage when the child arrives?

 

So should there be a means test for those who can conceive naturally?

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

So should there be a means test for those who can conceive naturally?

No, because the participants do not require taxpayers to subsidise their activity.

[PaliRichard 10]

So should there be a means test for those who can conceive naturally?

 

It is a good point and one that I confess I'd previously not thought about.

 

Having a baby costs the NHS money, and we don't have to have them (although I've got one and he's lovely )

 

So what is the difference between someone who can't have a baby naturally having IVF on the NHS and someone who can having a baby on the NHS.

 

As they are both (theoretically) in this day and age choices rather than life saving treatment should the NHS be expected to foot the bill for anyone who chooses to have a baby.

 

Mmm, very interesting, I will have to ponder this one, thanks snail

 

---------- Post added 30-05-2013 at 18:33 ----------

 

No, because the participants do not require taxpayers to subsidise their activity.

 

See above.

 

They do, I don't know of anyone who's had a baby who's had it privately.

[Bypassblade 10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scousemouse View Post

...........................children are a gift, not a right. My PERSONAL view is that you should not tamper with nature, if you are intented to have children in the natural way, you will.

 

 

Snailyboy

So can we assume you wouldn't tamper with nature by refusing medical interventions if you were sick or injured?

 

Sorry but you are twisting what scousermouse has said, they are advocating that if you are meant to have kids you will. Nature will take over and a child will result, by using the refusing medical treatment is totally different.

 

One is giving of life, and in most cases hopefully with love, one is the saving of life (more necessity), and yes people do refuse treatment, they are 2 entirely different things and cannot be compared.

 

I have already told my wife if anything happens to me further, I don't want resuscitating. I'm not going to join the argument about same sex couples having kids, my views on that are private and will stay that way.

 

Thanks Pete

[SnailyBoy 10]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scousemouse View Post

...........................children are a gift, not a right. My PERSONAL view is that you should not tamper with nature, if you are intented to have children in the natural way, you will.

 

 

Snailyboy

So can we assume you wouldn't tamper with nature by refusing medical interventions if you were sick or injured?

 

Sorry but you are twisting what scousermouse has said, they are advocating that if you are meant to have kids you will. Nature will take over and a child will result, by using the refusing medical treatment is totally different.

 

One is giving of life, and in most cases hopefully with love, one is the saving of life (more necessity), and yes people do refuse treatment, they are 2 entirely different things and cannot be compared.

 

I have already told my wife if anything happens to me further, I don't want resuscitating. I'm not going to join the argument about same sex couples having kids, my views on that are private and will stay that way.

 

Thanks Pete

 

I made a simplistic point based on the simplistic point that 'nature will take over' when it comes to conception.

 

The original point made no reference at all to the distress caused by couples not being able to conceive naturally, which could be cured by simple medication or on the other end of the scale, full blown IVF or even surrogacy. None of that would be available without medical intervention (or as some have said, not leaving it to nature).

 

Let's face it, if things were left to nature in general, the life span of population would be a lot lower. Developments in assisted conception (giving life as you call it) should be welcomed as much as other developments in heart research or cancer for example.

[WeX 10]

What's the difference between a woman born without a womb in a straight relationship and a man born without a womb in a homosexual one?

 

Which category would both individuals fall in considering your above argument?

 

A women is meant to have a womb, while a man is not. I would say that is a pretty major difference.

Edited May 31, 2013 by WeX

[El Cid 221]

 

Let's face it, if things were left to nature in general, the life span of population would be a lot lower.

 

I generally prefer to leave it to nature, but its a brave person that does not believe in any medical intervention. I was recently surprised at a woman saying she opposed the MMR because it was better to let the body catch diseases and then build up immunity to all sorts of diseases. Which I can see the logic, and I do believe in the principle, on a small scale.

But I certainly made sure my daughter had the MMR. Even things like preventing swelling, swelling is the bodies response to cure the problem, but we are told to apply ice. There have been some studies that show that applying ice is the wrong thing to do. Perhaps that is going slightly off topic,

[oneforeff 10]

While there are children in the (awful) care system waiting to be adopted, IVF shouldn't be provided on the NHS at all. If you want to be a parent so badly then adopt.