lesbians and IVF....
17 August 2005, 04:37 PM
#271
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The land of the pink pig
Posts: 21,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
You don't PLAY with meccano - you use it.
You see the problems with same sex parenting
You see the problems with same sex parenting
17 August 2005, 04:37 PM
#272
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Talk to the hand....
Posts: 13,331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
I had dolls, yes, but I also used to play with my brothers Mechano, his train set & Lego. Why would it be any different for a same sex couple?
17 August 2005, 04:37 PM
#273
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBigMan
The normal not normal thing is a play on words.
Homosexuality is not natural nor is it how we are designed to be. There is no argument otherwise.
However, people do not choose to be this way, and it certainly adds something different into society, much of it positive. However, lines have to be drawn when they are affecting others'.
Homosexuality is not natural nor is it how we are designed to be. There is no argument otherwise.
However, people do not choose to be this way, and it certainly adds something different into society, much of it positive. However, lines have to be drawn when they are affecting others'.
LOL, last post today, grrr!!
Ok, here's something for you BigMan. Homosexulaity *is* natural, for the given percentage of people born like it. You don't learn it. Or don't you accept that even?
That therefore does, as you say, preclude gay people having children by conventional means.
Whether it is their right to have children by means of IVF or some other means is a judgment call. *I* believe it is justified because evidence suggests they make good parents, and raise decent kids. That's it. The kids are the primary concern here, and they seem to be coping admirably. The adults seem to be complicating things.
The point of concern for ME though, is this line-drawing thing you mention. How do YOU know whether somebody you interact with in future years hasn't been in a same sex parent situation? And would you treat them any differently if you DID know it to be true? How does this whole situation "affect others", other than being able to disagree with it based on prejudices?
17 August 2005, 04:39 PM
#276
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Next door to the WiFi connection
Posts: 16,293
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
LOL, last post today, grrr!!
*I* believe it is justified because evidence suggests they make good parents, and raise decent kids. That's it.
*I* believe it is justified because evidence suggests they make good parents, and raise decent kids. That's it.
lol
17 August 2005, 04:39 PM
#277
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
How do you know this?
Most couples (straight or gay) surely would have children as an extension of their love for each other, not as some sort of tool
Most couples (straight or gay) surely would have children as an extension of their love for each other, not as some sort of tool
17 August 2005, 06:04 PM
#283
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Reality
Just Interested to get the full story.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it is wrong
lol
17 August 2005, 06:14 PM
#284
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't even be bothered to tackle the views of the majority on here. Prejudice is apparently fine if it is homophobia.
If they take away the opportunity for gay couples to get IVF, I suspect they will find another opposite gay couple and pose as hetero couples to get it. Some may already do this.
How many children born through IVF to gay parents are we talking about here anyway? 0.0001% of all babies born each year? Blimey, what an impact on society all these kids will have...
If they take away the opportunity for gay couples to get IVF, I suspect they will find another opposite gay couple and pose as hetero couples to get it. Some may already do this.
How many children born through IVF to gay parents are we talking about here anyway? 0.0001% of all babies born each year? Blimey, what an impact on society all these kids will have...
17 August 2005, 06:15 PM
#285
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dsmith
If sexuality is not a choice - then why should you be able to CHOOSE to have a baby by artificial means ? or another way..If we accept homesexuality is natural - then surely we must also accept that it doesnt lead to child birth aswell ?
And I think there is a large and easily defined difference between "giving a natural process a helping hand" for hetrosexual couples and creating something from nothing for homosexual couples.
And I think there is a large and easily defined difference between "giving a natural process a helping hand" for hetrosexual couples and creating something from nothing for homosexual couples.
The problem is that the choice is available it's like having your cake and eating it.....just not on !!
TBH if they are going to be good parents then I see no problem in it other than that child may grow up with a more open minded view of the world.
17 August 2005, 06:21 PM
#286
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!
Next thing you know, these same people will be commenting that the Jews are looking a bit iffy and maybe a good wash in a concrete bunker will do them some good.
I'm sure some of the posts on here are made purley to wind people up, then again, maybe SN is comprised of a whole lot of homophobes?
Next thing you know, these same people will be commenting that the Jews are looking a bit iffy and maybe a good wash in a concrete bunker will do them some good.
I'm sure some of the posts on here are made purley to wind people up, then again, maybe SN is comprised of a whole lot of homophobes?
17 August 2005, 06:44 PM
#288
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Portsmouth
Posts: 8,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Huxley Chick
I don't think anyone should be denied the opportunity to be a parent, if that's what they want. And an opportunity is all it is. IVF is not an easy solution - it's a very long & emotional process with only a 20% chance of success!
Children are happy as long as they have loving parents, it doesn't matter what sex they are. If people don't think same sex couples should have children, what happens if a 'normal' couple split & one of them discovers they are gay? Should they be refused access to their child?
Having children is not a right, it's a gift, but to point blank refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion.
Children are happy as long as they have loving parents, it doesn't matter what sex they are. If people don't think same sex couples should have children, what happens if a 'normal' couple split & one of them discovers they are gay? Should they be refused access to their child?
Having children is not a right, it's a gift, but to point blank refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion.
I personally dont believe in any form of artificial insemination, let (insert your chosen creator here) decide on whether a couple (straight/lesbian/whatever) bears children.
maybe, just maybe thats part of the the reason why we are are in so much **** with global over population.
advanced medicine saves too many that would have previously died, and those that wouldnt normally be able to conceive are doing so.
The talk today is that there is a court date being set aside to decide whether it should be free to lesbian couples (IVF that is) on the NHS, they claim discrimination.
whether or not you believe sexuality is a choice or not is immaterial, up until IVF was available ther was NO choice, lesbians either went without or got themselves knocked up, gay couples had no choice.
Mankind is destroying itself, and this is not helping.
(to) refuse someone the chance just because of their sexuality is wrong in my opinion
17 August 2005, 08:14 PM
#289
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 4,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To state that homosexual couples cannot have children naturally is not homophobic. Neither telboy nor huxley chick has yet tried to argue that a gay couple left to their own devices would create a child eventually.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
18 August 2005, 08:07 AM
#291
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Markus
Somehow I doubt that. I think it's more likley to be the case that you simply want to pull apart whatever I happen to reply with, maybe to try and make you sound superior or somehow justify whatever views you have on this.
You're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it is wrong lol
You're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it is wrong
lolSo the only person willing to share in depth knowledge of a child living with Lezzas is Davegtt (I think it was) - and he said that child was screwed.
Your observation of a child that "seems OK" has no depth to it (that you're willing to share) - So we don't know if that Child is screwed or not.
Therefore case proved - being brought up by a lezza is likely to increase your chances of being screwed - Given the limited evidence on this thread
.Good enough for you TelBoy ?
I thought not
18 August 2005, 08:12 AM
#292
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Markus
sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil! sieg heil!
Next thing you know, these same people will be commenting that the Jews are looking a bit iffy and maybe a good wash in a concrete bunker will do them some good.
I'm sure some of the posts on here are made purley to wind people up, then again, maybe SN is comprised of a whole lot of homophobes?
Next thing you know, these same people will be commenting that the Jews are looking a bit iffy and maybe a good wash in a concrete bunker will do them some good.
I'm sure some of the posts on here are made purley to wind people up, then again, maybe SN is comprised of a whole lot of homophobes?
Well done Markus - You had started to change my mind about lezzas suitability to be good parents with your story of a child that seemed OK.
But you failed to back it up with solid evidence that the girl was actually OK and now you start to imply anyone standing in the way of poofs changing the natural order is a ****.
I'll remind you that it was the ***** that first tried changing the Natural order with their experiments - so were you talking to yourself ?
18 August 2005, 08:27 AM
#293
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reality, i know of three situations of same gender parents with kids - none from IVF admittedly, and to the best of my knowledge - two are only really friends of friends, they're all doing fine. But it IS more than no first-hand experience of it, and the sweeping assumptions that arise from that.
We're not making this an all-dayer again are we?
We're not making this an all-dayer again are we?
18 August 2005, 08:42 AM
#294
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here!
Posts: 5,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fast bloke
Apparently you can get 15 quid a **** selling your love juice on the net. I reckon 100k a year is achievable with a bit of effort. (You would need a decent **** mag though)
18 August 2005, 08:47 AM
#295
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Here!
Posts: 5,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think deep down a child will suffer psychologically if both parents were gay - it's socially unacceptable by the majority of their peers I suspect and therefore would cause controversy and hurt within the childs life. Something that child would rebel against? Not that they don't rebel against other things but it would be tough for a child to keep it's head up when being taunted about it's parentage??
18 August 2005, 08:54 AM
#297
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TelBoy
Reality, i know of three situations of same gender parents with kids - none from IVF admittedly, and to the best of my knowledge - two are only really friends of friends, they're all doing fine. But it IS more than no first-hand experience of it, and the sweeping assumptions that arise from that.
We're not making this an all-dayer again are we?
We're not making this an all-dayer again are we?
See you on another thread
My work here is done.
ps - I have no first hand experience of paedophiles, murderers, terrorists or rapists - doesn't stop me having an opinion or making sweeping generalisations about what should happen to them
18 August 2005, 09:04 AM
#298
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No true, but in all those cases you mentioned you can PROVE the adverse effects on the victim - with same sex parents that's just not the case. Big difference. That's what i've been trying to highlight all along.
But you're right, time to move on. Those who think it's selfish will continue to do so. Those who think it will harm the kid will continue to do so. Those who think it's immoral will continue to do so. And those who are just plain homophobic will continue to be so. But it's been fun.
But you're right, time to move on. Those who think it's selfish will continue to do so. Those who think it will harm the kid will continue to do so. Those who think it's immoral will continue to do so. And those who are just plain homophobic will continue to be so. But it's been fun.
18 August 2005, 09:09 AM
#299
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dsmith
To state that homosexual couples cannot have children naturally is not homophobic. Neither telboy nor huxley chick has yet tried to argue that a gay couple left to their own devices would create a child eventually.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
18 August 2005, 09:15 AM
#300
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dsmith
To state that homosexual couples cannot have children naturally is not homophobic. Neither telboy nor huxley chick has yet tried to argue that a gay couple left to their own devices would create a child eventually.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
To state an opinion that the NHS should not fund treatments where the outcome is a natural impossibility is not prejudice. it is not homophobic. It is a valid opinion on a moral choice this country has to make on how to spend a limited pot of tax revenue.
Spot on.