Gay people should not be allowed to access IVF (5 Viewers)

[Tangent]

Homosexuality is a natural occurrence, not a adaptation you dick.

you totally missed the point, ofcourse homosexuality is a natural occurence
i was saying that what kids do at school is a reflection of what they are taught at home

 

[SnowFox]

Which, in the real world, is a adaptation.

 

[Tangent]

Im saying the kids reaction to other kids at school is a result of what they are being taught at home, im on the same bloody side of this argument as you

=P

 

[SnowFox]

Seriously you couldnt be more confusing.

 

[Tangent]

sorry Y-Y
i'll try and fix it all up



fixed

 

[Jemelet]

I'm not sure i get any of the negative comments. What's wrong with being Homosexual? In some ancient communities male love was considered a good thing; if in war (for Sparta) it meant u were less likely to run away or not try as hard. Who would want to fail in front of someone so important?

Define the following:

Unnatural:
Natural:
Ethics:
Unethical:
Ethical:
Discrimination:
Homophobia:

Then ask the following questions:

What is wrong with loving someone of the same gender to the point where ts on par with the love of your parents? Do you not love your father or mother?

Have i ever used medicine for minor things like a cold or minor infection?

Did i ever think about why these people are different? If so why? If not, why not?

Are the different? Why?

At what point did the community decide that love was unnatural?

If wanting a child, and being Homosexual, is unethical; then what are your views on cloning?

What are your views on cancer?

What are your views on IVF for normal parents?

If IVF for those couples is unnatual; then it is the same for 'normal' couples. IVF is a way around being unable to have a child. By allowing 'normal' couples to have children; is that not unethical as well since its unnatural?

Have you ever wanted something for no real reason, but more as a fashion statement or for 'want'?

Since when is a community; who has advanced faster then most 1st world nations when it comes to ethics, morals and revolutions, become this closed minded?

When has human curiosity become unnatural?

When have emotions become unnatural?

While thinking about unnatural; do you use ANYTHING unnatural at all in your daily life? Your house is unnartural, lets take that away because society thinks you shouldn't have it. Your computer, a large community thinks you shouldn't have something so unnatural in you home. And don't say "its normal" or "modern" etc because if your against homosexual couples, IVF and any other kind of "unnatural" major issue then you must be against all the basic and minor unnatural things in the world.

Why do people think by denying other people their rights; as HUMANS (and u cannot under any circumstances think that they aren't), to children will fix something or change something? People who legitametly should have children but because they aren't the 'normal' they are refused.

Have you ever wanted something so bad and been unable to get it because someone said no? Or someone thought you weren't good enough? The race you lost, the Job you didn't get, the promotion that should have been yours given to someone else, all the oppourtunites you could have taken from you because of one little fact that someone you don't even know decided that you didn't make the cut?

Iron, you're a numb-nut; shut up. Compare the amount of 'Normal' couple divorces against those normal couples with affairs. Compare that with the same sex couples who divorce and have affairs? I suppose next you will be having squads that barge into rooms of homosexual couples and have them arrested for being "Unnatural"?

Also, Boris? Since when is racism and sexism alright? What kind of fucking twit thinks trying to revert to medieval and classic social norms will fix anything? I suppose burning witches was a good thing too? Everything is wrong with hating "fags" (since when are they cigarettes?). It goes against everything that is intelligent and progressive.

Stop being so conservative and start realising that these things will happen with or without your negative, useless and discrimitive inputs. Humanity has only just started to make amends for its natural destructive behaviour; why are you trying to prevent it? The world most certainly doesnt need your type of person around. You have no rightful place in the world; i suggest you think long and hard about what role you want to play and how people will react.

 

[Silver Persian]

Yeah, well,

youre all too stupid and gutless to stand for anything anyway. Accept everything, you say, there's no such thing as good and evil, civilization and barbarism, correct and incorrect; it's all a big haze that we should allow ourselves the freedom to drift in, dude. This will fix everything! You wanna kill me? Go ahead, that's your right, bro
GAAAAAAarrrrrgglblerrr

Tools.

Mindless post-modernism and dogmatic Catholocism are not your only two options dear. Come and join me in the realm of Enlightenend modernism!

 

[neo o]

In some ancient communities male love was considered a good thing

Why do people think by denying other people their rights; as HUMANS (and u cannot under any circumstances think that they aren't), to children will fix something or change something? People who legitametly should have children but because they aren't the 'normal' they are refused.

Iron, you're a numb-nut; shut up. Compare the amount of 'Normal' couple divorces against those normal couples with affairs. Compare that with the same sex couples who divorce and have affairs? I suppose next you will be having squads that barge into rooms of homosexual couples and have them arrested for being "Unnatural"?

I'm sorry for picking on you Jemelet, but your post in particular jumped out at me.

Firstly, you seem to have missed the point of this thread. This thread isn't a debate on the legality of same-sex relationships. You and many other people in this thread have confused people's preference for a policy (prohibiting same sex couples and single women from obtaining IVF treatment) with people's stance on homosexuality. You can agree with a particular policy that may impact negatively upon a class of people without hating or disliking that class of people. That's common sense, but it's common sense that most people in this thread seem to lack.

Also, your pro-gay arguments are unbelievably derivative, stupid and cliche. The only thing you seem to have forgotten is, "ANIMALS HAVE GAY SEX TOO!". Just quickly though

1) Ancient cultures also institutionalised pedophilia, human sacrifices, rape and sexual servitude and slavery. Just because an idea is old, it isn't necessarily better. Look at Christianity.

2) There is no fundamental human right to be butt-buddies. People, particularly on the left love to make up human rights when its convenient for them. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does guarantee the right to marriage, but does allow for limitation based upon sex. Article 16 also guarantees people the right to enter into a marriage AND found a family i.e. it guarantees people the right to found a family within a married relationship. Additionally, with the removal of IVF treatment gay people and single women would still be able to found a family, they would just have to do it through more traditional methods, which is appropriate in a health system where resources are limited and should be rationed on a basis of need and not want.

3) Christ, someone always tries to crap on about how horrible heterosexual relationships are. How we have divorce and domestic violence. Your post is unique because you try to make out that gay relationships are SUPERIOR to heterosexual relationships. We all have the same problems, and it's easy to imagine that gay marriages would be just as shit in many instances as bad heterosexuals marriages. Your shit aint gold love.

--------

Re: The topic. I believe health care services should be rationed on a basis of need, not want. I don't believe that some elective procedures, such as IVF treatment for homosexuals and single women should be subject to government support. I also feel that people wanting to undertake such procedures should be placed in a queue behind people who are unable to conceive naturally.

 

[Serius]

surprisingly, i am on the fence with this one. Usually i would err on the side of being liberal, but for some strange reason Irons arguments make sense to me.

I am not particularly pro IVF for anybody, but if you have to give it to someone that otherwise wouldnt be having kids, then select based on what type of parents they are going to be. If its true that kids with a mum AND a dad turn out better, then maybe same sex parents shouldnt be given IVF. Just like poor parents shouldnt be. On the other side of things, it doesnt much affect me if some gays want to have kids, and if it makes them happier and they are going to be good parents [ and not treat their kids like little accessories that some1 brought up lol] then maybe allowing them that isnt such a bad thing.

In my mind, the only major thing that makes me care if my kids are going to be straight or not is that i want grandkids, if they were allowed kids by IVF then the only things i will need to overcome are some minor prejudice.

 

[kami]

2) There is no fundamental human right to be butt-buddies. People, particularly on the left love to make up human rights when its convenient for them. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does guarantee the right to marriage, but does allow for limitation based upon sex. Article 16 also guarantees people the right to enter into a marriage AND found a family i.e. it guarantees people the right to found a family within a married relationship. Additionally, with the removal of IVF treatment gay people and single women would still be able to found a family, they would just have to do it through more traditional methods, which is appropriate in a health system where resources are limited and should be rationed on a basis of need and not want.

Jemlet may be a numb nut but you're kind of misrepresenting some things.

The quote you're responding to with this isn't about the right to be 'butt buddies' but rather child rearing. Marriage is an irrelevant point to raise if you want to talk about this right in the strictest sense. I think the more pertinent issue of rights here, which there is, is the right to not be discriminated against and most nations do have legislation regarding that. Same sex couples should not be singled out and prevented from accessing a service which different sex couples can access freely so rights are a question here.

And "still be able to found a family, they would just have to do it through more traditional methods" just smells like the cliche knee jerk of 'but gays still can get married! just not to each other!' argument. As long as the service exists for differing sex couples then it should be there for same sex couples - just working off the idea that a gay man could just go have sex with a lesbian if they really wanted a kid entirely misses the point.

Re: The topic. I believe health care services should be rationed on a basis of need, not want. I don't believe that some elective procedures, such as IVF treatment for homosexuals and single women should be subject to government support. I also feel that people wanting to undertake such procedures should be placed in a queue behind people who are unable to conceive naturally.

Why should they be placed behind sterile heterosexual couples? Their aspiration for children is similarly a want, not a need, as children are not a requirement in this society.

 

[kami]

surprisingly, i am on the fence with this one. Usually i would err on the side of being liberal, but for some strange reason Irons arguments make sense to me.

I am not particularly pro IVF for anybody, but if you have to give it to someone that otherwise wouldnt be having kids, then select based on what type of parents they are going to be. If its true that kids with a mum AND a dad turn out better, then maybe same sex parents shouldnt be given IVF. Just like poor parents shouldnt be. On the other side of things, it doesnt much affect me if some gays want to have kids, and if it makes them happier and they are going to be good parents [ and not treat their kids like little accessories that some1 brought up lol] then maybe allowing them that isnt such a bad thing.

In my mind, the only major thing that makes me care if my kids are going to be straight or not is that i want grandkids, if they were allowed kids by IVF then the only things i will need to overcome are some minor prejudice.

Nope.

There's been studies done on this for years and years and years. There's no appreciable difference, especially since many same sex couples do involve two mums and two dads with co-parenting relationships.

 

[Enteebee]

From what I read it sounded like he was saying that neither homosexual couples nor heterosexual women who don't have some disease giving them complications should choose IVF. TBH I don't think it's that outlandish...

For instance if I were to say the following, i doubt there' would be so many objections:

"It seems to me that people are making the choice to go with IVF a little soon, women (and their partners) whom still have plenty of time on their biological clock and no known physical ailment should continue trying naturally as this is much cheaper etc. I also think that homosexuals should look for other options, such as (in the case of two males) finding a female friend who'd be willing to have the child with them naturally or (in the case of two females) a male friend.... or there's always lots of kids to adopt"

People may have objections or whatever, but I doubt it'd illicit this response. Perhaps I'm being far too kind... but ehhh - to me few people seem to have read his comments this way.

sigh...

 

[Iron]

Mindless post-modernism and dogmatic Catholocism are not your only two options dear. Come and join me in the realm of Enlightenend modernism!

SP, the college intellectual who maintained a middle course of culture between the flamboyant 'aesthetes' and the proletarian scholars who scrambled fiercely for facts...

 

[x.christina]

this is discriminatory against single women and gay couples - i thought that maybe australia had moved on from medieval ways of thinking.

this thread makes me mad :mad1:

 

[*TRUE*]

I'm not entirely comfortable with IVF for any person or couple.

 

[jules.09]

I'm not entirely comfortable with IVF for any person or couple.

Haha, I was starting to wonder when someone was going to say that.

The bottom line is, the 'natural' argument isn't valid. IVF is not natural. Period.

I suppose, in opposition to IVF, there can be adoption? Whether you're infertile and heterosexual, homosexual or a single female/male in want of a child, perhaps this is the way to go. I need time to think about this.

 

[Enteebee]

I'm not entirely comfortable with IVF for any person or couple.

Yeah but you also believe there's some magic man out there who listens to your prayers.

 

[Cookie182]

Just on the notion of the child, I was wondering ppl's views in respect to the necessity of growing up with a mother & a father?

I know this is a common argument, I'm particularly undecided on it. Obviously, many children of heterocouples grow up with only a single parent in their life; but that doesn't take away the fact that they do have a parent of each sex. It is obviously an interesting area of discussion.

What about the 13 yr old girl who just got her periods for the first time and isn't sure which dad to talk to?

 

[Tangent]

I also think that homosexuals should look for other options, such as (in the case of two males) finding a female friend who'd be willing to have the child with them naturally or (in the case of two females) a male friend.... or there's always lots of kids to adopt"

sigh...

Are you a dolt? Although it is possible for a homosexual male to conceive a child through natural means with female, and also a lesbian female to conceive with a male, it is an invasion of the boundaries of the friendship, and it would be uncomfortable for both parties. And there isnt a 100% chance of conceiving, so each could have to be put through sexual intercourse several times.

For all heterosexuals to comprehend, please picture yourself participating in sexual intercourse with a member of the same sex. I wonder if you get what i mean.

This thread is about what everyone thinks of this issue of course, but ultimately these are only opinions in the end. What the head of AMA said was a grossly unprofessional statement. As the head of such a powerful organisation he is abusing his positions power. He is supposed to be objective on subjects like this, or as face what has happened -> call for his resignation for not thinking in the best interests for all australians.
Topics like this should be devoid of all prejudices when making decisions on, and Dr Andrew Pesce showed how unlearned he was in this particular area of his field.

IVF should not be a "lifestyle choice" and use of the treatment by same sex couples went against the "natural order".

"Fertility treatment is there to treat diseases that cause infertility, it shouldn't be there as a lifestyle choice,"

Sexuality is not a lifestyle choice, and IVf is also going against the natural order of things, and so do other things in medicine. EG. life support, medications...


Peoples opinions should stop all same-sex couples from raising a family, just because it goes against natural, or because gays are possessed by the devil (satan =P). Instead they should be treated like everyone else, and the same processes of evaluation used on them.

Yays for equality!!!!

 

[Tangent]

Just on the notion of the child, I was wondering ppl's views in respect to the necessity of growing up with a mother & a father?

I know this is a common argument, I'm particularly undecided on it. Obviously, many children of heterocouples grow up with only a single parent in their life; but that doesn't take away the fact that they do have a parent of each sex. It is obviously an interesting area of discussion.

What about the 13 yr old girl who just got her periods for the first time and isn't sure which dad to talk to?

I know where you are coming from, though i dont think there is a necessity of growing up with a mother and a father- as you have stated, lots of people only grow up with one parent anyway.

As for the girl who has just had her first period, there will probably a parent she would feel closer to talking about it, and hopefully the parents would have sound knowledge in this area, as they would have known it would happen eventually.
OR
There might be a close, female family friend who she can talk to about matters like that.