View Full Version : Adoption, abortion and IVF: Discuss
Trying to keep Paws thread from being derailed, but it looked like an interesting chat so thought I'd start this. My opinions? Pro choice, anti IVF (we're overpopulated already, and there's loads of unwanted kids. If you want one get one of them!) and therefore pro adoption.
What's your views?
Original thread here: http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=114085&page=5
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:39 PM
One sec, I'll bring my post over
ok, here i go again:
There is sometimes justified cause for abortion. Yes, it does mean that you end a life; but I would rather not bring a child into the world where it will not be loved, will suffer cruelty, will not be able to be looked after properly. This dosn't mean that unborn children with pre-diagnosed problems (i.e. downs syndrome etc) should be automaticaly aborted, because they can still be given a good quality of life and be loved.
I'm not very good at arguing my point, but I believe that under certain curcumstances abortion is a viable option.
But it is a very serious option, and giving your child up for adoption is a better idea, but like bear said, that dosn't garuntee they'll be taken in by a loving family, and having read some books about things like that, kids seem to get passed around form foster home to foster home
I'll go away now
IVF should have an upper age limit i think say 40. and I am pro Abortion.
gettin2dizzy
17-07-08, 03:45 PM
...under certain curcumstances abortion ..
...that dosn't garuntee they'll be taken in by a loving family,...
Spot the scientist :lol: (I'm in the same boat; don't worry ;))
Personally; you should be completely free to do what you want. People should be taught to be responsible rather than laws coming in to control childbirth. Once that level of control comes in, even Orwell would express his surprise.
IVF should have an upper age limit i think say 40. and I am pro Abortion.
Do you mean pro choice?
40 really - i am nearly 40 my doctor won't let me go the IVF route yet she wants me to wait a while longer - i think 40 is too low an age for the limit of IVF, thats my personal opinion i know people that have been trying for years and its happened naturally for them after 10 years and 3 years of IVF.
I'm not pro-abortion or anti abortion
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:49 PM
IVF should have an upper age limit i think say 40. and I am pro Abortion.
Well, maybe higher - women can natrully conceive until they are about 50-55? Something like that. It should be offered to those people who would be able of natrully conceiving given their age, but cannot due to whatever problem prevents them from doing so.
Matt
Do you mean pro choice?
yeah!!
I also se an argument for given the woman the choice for aborting if the kid is going to be severly physically or mentaly disabled or both. I mean what sort of life would it have or the parents from that point on??
Ceri JC
17-07-08, 03:50 PM
IVF should only be available privately IMO. The NHS is barely able to adequately deal with the necessities of saving lives and aleviating suffering (which is what it was set up for), without it being additionally burdened with having to provide luxuries. I am definately pro-adoption.
plowsie
17-07-08, 03:50 PM
I'm with Stu on his post - Abortion is killing another life IMHO...
It has always been my view that Abortion is a very very wrong thing, the question got asked to me at school, fair enough was the reply to my answer, the next question slightly baffled me and took me into a dilemma I couldn't get to the answer "At what point do you decide that it is a life Stuart?" It still bugs me today that question.
I just feel that it is the wrong thing to do. Yes fair enough there are circumstances where its not your fault you got pregnant, so on and so forth but my view on it in a similar situation to Paws's cousins situation would be (Laura I am not directing this at your cousin BTW) - your mess, deal with it. I would.
My girlfriend has had the scare that she thought she was pregnant, she knows how I was on the subject, and knew what I would say, its one thing that can really knock you back and take a good look at things, I was prepared to do anything to be able to let a child into this world if I had to.
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:51 PM
Spot the scientist :lol: (I'm in the same boat; don't worry ;))
Personally; you should be completely free to do what you want. People should be taught to be responsible rather than laws coming in to control childbirth. Once that level of control comes in, even Orwell would express his surprise.
Thankyou kind sir :smt048
IVF should only be available privately IMO. The NHS is barely able to adequately deal with the necessities of saving lives and aleviating suffering (which is what it was set up for), without it being additionally burdened with having to provide luxuries. I am definately pro-adoption.
+1 yep, some people are designed not to have kids, accept that, or if you cant yep it should have to be funded privetly. Unless, through some kind of ilness or accident conception naturally is hindered then IVF should be concidered on the NHS
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:53 PM
yeah!!
I also se an argument for given the woman the choice for aborting if the kid is going to be severly physically or mentaly disabled or both. I mean what sort of life would it have or the parents from that point on??
thats a good point; if there is nobody to care for the child properly, then its just going to suffer.
This could open up another can of worms about euthunasia (sp)
fizzwheel
17-07-08, 03:54 PM
IVF should only be available privately IMO. The NHS is barely able to adequately deal with the necessities of saving lives and aleviating suffering (which is what it was set up for), without it being additionally burdened with having to provide luxuries. I am definately pro-adoption.
Funny isnt it, how the NHS will pay for IVF, but the Neo Natal unit that looked after my neice when she was born very prematurely is mostly funded I think by charitable donation and fund raising...
I'm pro choice, but from what I've seen in my personal circumstances is that abortion should never been seen as an easy way to solve the problem as it can leave behind terrible emotional scars.
plowsie
17-07-08, 03:55 PM
This could open up another can of worms about euthunasia (sp)
Don't take me back to the days at school with R.E, I was crap at it, can you tell :lol:
"At what point do you decide that it is a life Stuart?" It still bugs me today that question.
I would say where the baby could survive naturally outside the womb!
but from what I've seen in my personal circumstances is that abortion should never been seen as an easy way to solve the problem as it can leave behind terrible emotional scars.
I agree with that Fizz
Pro choice, pro adoption.
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:57 PM
I'm pro choice, but from what I've seen in my personal circumstances is that abortion should never been seen as an easy way to solve the problem as it can leave behind terrible emotional scars.
There was a girl at my school who admitted to me she became pregnant, and had to have it aborted (she was 15). She did it all secretly, and enlisted the help of another adult to pose as her relative I think so there was that "legal gaurdian" there to say it was ok. But yea, she felt terribly guilty about it
plowsie
17-07-08, 03:57 PM
I would say where the baby could survive naturally outside the womb!
But then theres the living inside off what its mother gets nutrients from also and doh........ Don't get me started :lol:
This could open up another can of worms about euthunasia (sp)
yeah i am pro that as well, i mean i would rather be dead than stuck paralysed unable to speak or see, or if the best life i could ask for was to be a cabbage, I would rather be dead!
And i think People should be able to state that if they are going to end up like that they are not to be kept alive.
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 03:58 PM
I would say where the baby could survive naturally outside the womb!
is that, breathe on its own etc etc without the aid of machines?
yeah i am pro that as well, i mean i would rather be dead than stuck paralysed unable to speak or see, or if the best life i could ask for was to be a cabbage, I would rather be dead!
And i think People should be able to state that if they are going to end up like that they are not to be kept alive.
I think the same. I know that if I was e.g. paralysed form the neck down, I would have no life - the quality would be too significantly reduced for me to want to live; no ridign bikes, no playing guitar, no moshing, nothing like that. What a terrible waste of an Alpinestarhero.
I suppose there is a fine line between suicide and euthanasia though. When does one become the other?
plowsie
17-07-08, 03:58 PM
I agree with that Fizz
+1 too
is that, breathe on its own etc etc without the aid of machines?
yes, i mean where if it was born and you left it would it breath and live like ful term babys do .
I feel very strongly that choice is THE most important thing, in all aspects of the questions posed.
Abortion may be seen as wrong or unacceptable by some people because of thier own personal beliefs but in my opinion is HAS to be one of the choices available to a woman/girl who becomes pregnant in unfavourable circumstances.
That is not the same as saying abortion should be easy or used as a form of contraception; just that it should be there as an option without judgement or pain.
IVF is a complex issue. I know from a good friend the psychological anguish of not being able to have a child naturally. Why set an upper age limit. nature may do for women but it doesn't for men. If you see IVF as some form of luxury health care then I'd ask you to consider the costs of treatment for preventable conditions brought about by not good lifestyle choices (smoking, drinking, overeating perhaps)
Just my opinion, of course
I'm with Stu on his post - Abortion is killing another life IMHO...
It would be hypocritical of me not to point out that I am pro choice, but would much prefer that abortions didn't have to happen.
I just take offence at advice given to someone who's willing to give the greatest gift of adoption, that they should have aborted instead.
I'm sorry, I probably don't know enough about the strains on the NHS argument over IVF shouldn't just be for the rich argument to have a strong view on this, but I would prefer it not to be a drain on the NHS.
gettin2dizzy
17-07-08, 04:06 PM
If someone wants to clone me a Dannie Minogue, you have my full support :thumbsup:
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 04:07 PM
If someone wants to clone me a Dannie Minogue, you have my full support :thumbsup:
To the laboratory!!
custard
17-07-08, 04:07 PM
pro choice. if you cant offer a child a good start and support it as it needs to be etc
Ceri JC
17-07-08, 04:07 PM
is that, breathe on its own etc etc without the aid of machines?
Ah and what if the baby is born prematurely and cannot survive with artificial means, does that mean that what it has is not technically a 'life' and we shouldn't squander valuable resources on keeping it alive? Hardly anyone would say yes, yet some people are happy to use the definition that prior to this point (IE when it could not survive naturally) a child can be aborted. Others argue that if it is scientifically possible to keep a baby alive outside the womb then it is too late for abortion. This seems a fair argument, but what about in the future if we develop artifical wombs that could raise an embryo all the way from conception through to the end of pregnancy? Shoul that mean an end to abortion? Does the "morning after pill" constitute some sort of abortion as fertilisation has already taken place?
It's tricky, isn't it?
:smt017
On a related note, anyone read what Freakanomics has to say on the introduction of abortion in America and the subsequent drop in crime 20 years later?
plowsie
17-07-08, 04:09 PM
A post a minute...Doing well this one :lol:
(smoking, drinking, overeating, motorbikes perhaps)
:-dd
Ceri JC
17-07-08, 04:11 PM
Oh and to chuck some more fuel on the fire, how do people feel about the "perversion" (I mean that in a linguistically correct way, rather than as a derisory term) of the Hypocratic Oath which originally included the line,
"Nor will I give a woman a pessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary) to procure abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion)."
Arguably, it was originally a very simple to understand honourable concept; to always preserve life and alleviate suffering. Whereas now, it's a bit less cut and dry...
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:13 PM
I'm with Stu on his post - Abortion is killing another life IMHO...
It has always been my view that Abortion is a very very wrong thing.
I just feel that it is the wrong thing to do. Yes fair enough there are circumstances where its not your fault you got pregnant.
I disagree with you there Plowsie, whether it's right or wrong will depend on the circumstances of each pregnancy.
As for the not your fault getting pregnant surely that is one of the circumstances I mentioned above.
Right woman is pregnant, baby is found to have birth defects/dissabilities that mean it will be extremely limited in life is it still wrong to have an abortion then? Will that child actually have a life or will it merely be existing? Is it right for that child to be born and [possibly] suffer what could be excrutiating pain for a few days/weeks/months or even years or need a lot of operations just to keep it alive or exisiting depending on you're point of view?
Here's another spin on the life is life thing;
A dog is a life is it not? Would ypou not have the dog you love put to sleep to stop it's pain and suffering?
You could even argue that abortion/euthenasia is the same thing in some cases
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 04:13 PM
Arguably, it was originally a very simple to understand honourable concept; to always preserve life and alleviate suffering. Whereas now, it's a bit less cut and dry...
Didn't the idea of preserving life, no matter what, stem from religion - god's creations and all that?
plowsie
17-07-08, 04:15 PM
I disagree with you there Plowsie, whether it's right or wrong will depend on the circumstances of each pregnancy.
As for the not your fault getting pregnant surely that is one of the circumstances I mentioned above.
Right woman is pregnant, baby is found to have birth defects/dissabilities that mean it will be extremely limited in life is it still wrong to have an abortion then? Will that child actually have a life or will it merely be existing? Is it right for that child to be born and [possibly] suffer what could be excrutiating pain for a few days/weeks/months or even years or need a lot of operations just to keep it alive or exisiting depending on you're point of view?
Here's another spin on the life is life thing;
A dog is a life is it not? Would ypou not have the dog you love put to sleep to stop it's pain and suffering?
You could even argue that abortion/euthenasia is the same thing in some cases
Young and naive me, I don't think that far into things and can see your point there mate.
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 04:17 PM
You could even argue that abortion/euthenasia is the same thing in some cases
I guess so, but when you abort something the life being terminated dosn't have any say in the matter...
Young and naive me, I don't think that far into things and can see your point there mate.
DD is quite young, he just looks old.;)
plowsie
17-07-08, 04:20 PM
DD is quite young, he just looks old.;)
But wise also.
Ceri JC
17-07-08, 04:21 PM
Didn't the idea of preserving life, no matter what, stem from religion - god's creations and all that?
I think you're right, although I believe it was originally written in the context of the Greek pantheon of Gods (as opposed to a Judeo-Christian one) and suicide/ending any life wasn't quite so taboo as in, say, a Christian one. Some denominations of Catholic believe that suicide is an unforgivable sin (as you don't have "time" to repent after doing it) and results in you automatically going to hell, in spite of what you did in the rest of your life. Arguably, they would be more opposed to that other great controversial topic, euthanasia than the classical greeks, yet this too was a no no under the original hippocratic oath.
Don't quote me on any of this mind- I'm no medical historian!
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:21 PM
I guess so, but when you abort something the life being terminated dosn't have any say in the matter...
Unless that person is in a vegetative state and their wife/husband whatever decides they want to end their suffering. Or is that murder? It's a fine line I think
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:23 PM
DD is quite young, he just looks old.;)
OI! bugger off
But wise also. Why thank you
Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 04:24 PM
Unless that person is in a vegetative state and their wife/husband whatever decides they want to end their suffering. Or is that murder? It's a fine line I think
yea it is a fine line. I think at that point it has to be someone who knows oyu very well to decide if you want your life terminated. Maria knows I do, and so do my parents.
Or
I could be kept in a vegative state until the wonders of science come up with a cure!!
Wouldn't it be an **** if the plug was pulled, then the next day a revolutionary and brilliant new treatment was offered...
Anyway, joking aside, we seem to be realising there are lots of fine lines between one thing and another
I have said often to my family that if I'm ever in a state of no free will will and too much suffering, please then "Take me to the vets" as the euphemism went in our family when one of the cats was 'moments' away from a painful natural death.
perhaps euthanasia and abortion are not a million miles away from each other
IVF shouldn't have an age limit. Who's to say at what age you aren't fit to be a parent? IF anything, maybe there should be a limit to the number of cycles one can have,if only to give everyone a fair chance.
As for government funding of IVF. Compared to everything else the government funds, why not!!!
I'm completely pro adoption.
As for abortion, I'm on the fence with this one. I can see both sides of the argument. If done for medical reasons, I'm drawn towards the pro abortion camp. For social reasons, I'm not so sure. It is afterall a healthy viable fetus.
I have said often to my family that if I'm ever in a state of no free will will and too much suffering, please then "Take me to the vets" as the euphemism went in our family when one of the cats was 'moments' away from a painful natural death.
perhaps euthanasia and abortion are not a million miles away from each other
Yeah, but eunathasia requires a conciuos desire by the person involved, either at the time or previous, who speaks for the aborted child ? anti abortion, pro adoption
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:33 PM
perhaps euthanasia and abortion are not a million miles away from each other
I already said that :smt016;)
IF anything, maybe there should be a limit to the number of cycles one can have,if only to give everyone a fair chance.
As for government funding of IVF. Compared to everything else the government funds, why not!!!
For social reasons, I'm not so sure. It is afterall a healthy viable fetus.
I thought there was a limit to the number of cycles (3 i was led to believe) if it was being done on the NHS?
True enough they fund plenty of other things that people will dispute that need funding
Ok, it's a healthy viable fetus but is it viable for that 12yr old girl to be having it?
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:36 PM
anti IVF (we're overpopulated already, and there's loads of unwanted kids. If you want one get one of them!) and therefore pro adoption.
If only adopting a child was easy as your thread makes it out to be.
If only adopting a child was easy as your thread makes it out to be.
+1
The number that indicates a person's age does not necessarily indicate their level of psychological or indeed physical development. Perhaps one could argue that a young teenager is in better physical health to bear a child than a 45 year old. And raising a child is never easy whatever your date of birth so always love, support and encouragement will make the difference
dirtydog
17-07-08, 04:41 PM
Indeed, that could well be the case. It comes back to each individual case and the reasoning for the abortion
blue curvy jester
17-07-08, 04:49 PM
The jewish take on when life starts or when a fetus (and therefore not an individual life) turns to a baby (and therefore is,) is when it starts to move in the womb it is not a defined time.
Pro-choice, pro-adoption, pro-life(for both sides of the argument)
As for IVF a defined number of cycles should be tried (probabLY 3 at most) as sucess rates go linerally down from that point on.
Also the age limit should be set but high enough to cover all women who could have 'naturally ' concived ie no 65 yr old mothers that is tantamount to child cruelty
(conflict of interest as an ex researcher in this field)
Ok, it's a healthy viable fetus but is it viable for that 12yr old girl to be having it?
Socially, perhaps not. Mentally, probably not. Physically, yes.
Younger 'women' tend to labour and deliver better.
Not that I condone a 12 year old being pregnant. But if it's happened, it's happened.
timwilky
17-07-08, 05:06 PM
OK the Tim Wilky view of things.
1) A woman has the right to decide if she wants to have a child. It is her body, it is up to her if she wants to carry a foetus to full term.
2) Abortion is an extreme form of contraception that should only be entered into with the full facts known by the woman. The danger to her health and future child bearing capability etc.
3) Fathers have rights. A woman should not be allowed to abort a child against the wishes of a father. Even if this contradicts point 1.
4) Adoption is not ideal for raising a child. The natural parents should be encouraged and helped to raise their offspring.
5) IVF is a fact. The desire to have children is a primary urge built into humans. Now the technology exists it should be available to all couples. Not limited to those who can pay, no arbitrary rules such as if one member of a relationship has already fathered children elsewhere the infertile woman cannot be helped etc.
6) Contraception should be freely available, without moralising and without guilt. We can educae people that sex is best as part of a solid relationship, but have to recognise one night stands, failed relationships even rape can result in unwanted pregnancy. We should not moralise. We should help the woman make the decision that is right for her.
Miss Alpinestarhero
17-07-08, 05:38 PM
Interesting thread.
I feel very strongly that choice is THE most important thing, in all aspects of the questions posed
Abortion may be seen as wrong or unacceptable by some people because of their own personal beliefs but in my opinion is HAS to be one of the choices available to a woman/girl who becomes pregnant in unfavourable circumstances.
That is not the same as saying abortion should be easy or used as a form of contraception; just that it should be there as an option without judgement or pain.
+ 1
Although abortion is not a decision to be taken lightly, I firmly believe that the option should be there. Especially in severe circumstances i.e. the woman was raped. A very good friend of mine got pregnant at school and she was in no position to bring up a child and provide it with all that is required to live a comfortable life. Sure the child would have been loved very much, but its quality of life would have been very poor. She took the decision to abort it and still suffers from the psychological trauma of it today (8 years later). Initially she regretted it, but now she is glad she made that choice.
I think it is selfish to bring a child into this world if you cannot look after it sufficiently. I equally think it is unfair to bring a child into this world then give it away to be adopted. As others have said, there is no guarantee the child will go to a loving home. It’s a gamble..and a gamble I wouldn't take.
I agree that it is extremely difficult to determine when life starts and when to draw the line....
Ah and what if the baby is born prematurely and cannot survive with artificial means, does that mean that what it has is not technically a 'life' and we shouldn't squander valuable resources on keeping it alive?
I was born two months early and was severely deprived of oxygen (one proposed reason why I’m deaf) and I would not be here today if I didn’t have a machine to keep me alive. I was in an incubator for two months 24/7. Who makes the decesion as to whether you're using up valuable resources? The same can be said for people who carry out acts that are detrimental to their health, are treated, yet continue with that act. i.e. smokers needing surgery or whatever to treat them. The same principle applies...they know that what they are doing will kill them/cause them to have ill health so therefore they should not ever be treated. Thats a valuable waste of resoruces. So should doctors refuse them treatment and let them die? As you said, its very tricky.
Other quick opinions I have:
a) Euthanasia should be allowed if the person has made a living will with full mental capacity and they have legal representatives/witnesses. As DirtyDog said: we dont let our pets suffer so why should we? If I was paralysed or dying in unberable pain, Id rather die. Ive already told my parents and matt that if im ever a vegetable who cant do anything for myself - to kill me.
b) adoption...option should be there if couples can't conceive naturally, IVF fails but it sure isn't easy. It is one complicated and lengthy process. I think it is a great shame that there a children in this world who are not wanted.
Maria
Pro abortion................with reservations. For under-age girls and victims of rape it should definitely be an option.
Pro adoption.
Anti-IVF. Sorry, but nobody has a 'right' to have a child. If you can't concieve naturally then adopt.
gettin2dizzy
17-07-08, 06:06 PM
I was born two months early and was severely deprived of oxygen (one proposed reason why I’m deaf) and I would not be here today if I didn’t have a machine to keep me alive. I was in an incubator for two months 24/7. Who makes the decesion as to whether you're using up valuable resources? The same can be said for people who carry out acts that are detrimental to their health, are treated, yet continue with that act. i.e. smokers needing surgery or whatever to treat them. The same principle applies...they know that what they are doing will kill them/cause them to have ill health so therefore they should not ever be treated. Thats a valuable waste of resoruces. So should doctors refuse them treatment and let them die? As you said, its very tricky.
From what I gather, you're pretty cute. That VASTLY changes the argument :smt048
Pro abortion................with reservations. For under-age girls and victims of rape it should definitely be an option.
Pro adoption.
Anti-IVF. Sorry, but nobody has a 'right' to have a child. If you can't concieve naturally then adopt.
Why anti IVF Lissa ?
Why anti IVF Lissa ?
Because why does anyone have an automatic 'right' to have a child? There are children dying every day from fatal diseases that the money would be better spent on.
If people fund the cost themselves, fine.
Because why does anyone have an automatic 'right' to have a child? There are children dying every day from fatal diseases that the money would be better spent on.
If people fund the cost themselves, fine.
We were quoted £6000 a go, 3 goes = £18,000 who can afford that ?
Pro choice - her body, her choice. No one else's decision, not even the father.
Why? He doesn't have to carry to term. He should find someone else who wants kids and have them with her, there are plenty of women out there that do. A fundamental difference of opinion like that would break a relationship anyway. In the circumstance of rape a 'father' could potentially force the victim to carry to term which is simply unacceptable.
BTW according to our neighbours who have recently gone through IVF, our local NHS offer 1 set of IVF then you have to pay. Dunno if that is the same everywhere or not.
Trace :)
Nostrils
17-07-08, 07:04 PM
IMO
I dont believe in abortion as a form of contraception as has been reported in the press a number of times, but I am in favour of pro-choice. A niece has just made a very difficult decision, long term boyfriend, enjoying there young lives, both not ready and cannot support the child in the way they would want and for them both, they dont want children until they are married.
I am in favour of adoption and the process should be easier for all, not just those from one of today's so called trendy groups of people. The process should still remain stringent with all the check and balances taking place.
IVF, well this falls into other aspects of Human Rights as some have argued that the phrase "the right to bear children" has been brought up in the press too for both a mother and a father (who happened to be in prison for life and used legal aid to fight his case). If the NHS are to provide IVF, then I do think that a thorough investigation should take place on both partners medically and emotionally because it can lead to partners becoming obsessed leading to break-ups etc.
All these decision are life changing for all concerned and I personally have not had to make these decisions or asked by family who have found themselves in one of them.
gettin2dizzy
17-07-08, 07:27 PM
Because why does anyone have an automatic 'right' to have a child? There are children dying every day from fatal diseases that the money would be better spent on.
If people fund the cost themselves, fine.
That's a bit tough. If you could see in only one eye but the NHS 'could' easily fund treatment for the other to work perfectly; I'm sure you'd want them to help with the costs. Not that it's 'your right' to see in both eyes; just that it's a compassionate thing for the nation to help fund. A poor comparison as I'm sure many a mother would lose an eye for a child at the drop of a hat.
IVF isn't the most expensive treatment comparatively, and the NHS won't pay for it for long. Helping fund one couple's chance; desperate for a child which they'll love undeniably because they've been unfortunate enough to have to endure years of struggling and doubt is in my mind, justifiable. Whilst there may be kids that need adopting, that isn't their doing.
gettin2dizzy
17-07-08, 07:29 PM
IMO
IVF, well this falls into other aspects of Human Rights as some have argued that the phrase "the right to bear-children" has been brought up in the press too for both a mother and a father (who happened to be in prison for life and used legal aid to fight his case)..
Ahhhhh!
http://www.richard.hare.dsl.pipex.com/hairy-chinese-kid.jpg
Good thread bear :)
for me and my family situ- abortion vs adoption-in this situ theres was no win/ easy situ or choice...
Either way my cosuin is going to have issues/reminders of what decision she made and will live with it for thew rest of her life.
I agree with abortion and adoption, unsure about ivf
What a good thread....... glad that it's not degenerated with unsavoury or bigotted comments.
Lots of folks have offered well-reasoned views on abortion one way and the other but wonder how many have actually been in the position of having to decide for themselves?
Those that have been there will know that the final decision is quite possibly the toughest and most emotionally traumatic thing that anyone can though.
It's only when one goes through it that ones true view is formed.
I'll leave it there.
I agree with Bear to some degree on the IVF front. The are loads of children in the world who do not have parents so one may say that those who cannot have children naturally and want a child should adopt. However there is the valid point that everyone has the right to have a child of their own and therefore should be given every opportunity and receive the best help possible. Whether or not this should be funded by the NHS is a difficult one.....isn't the NHS there to provide support to those who cannot afford private treatment? Most clinics in the UK that offer IVF treatment to NHS patients limit the amount of free treatments to either one or two cycles, so it can be argued in that respect potentially everyone is given a chance. What I don't agree with is how different regions in the UK have different rules whether or not treatment is offered; it's a bit of a postcode lottery. Another major issue I have with IVF treatment is the high cost with private clinics. It was recently reported that a couple spent over ?50k on IVF treatment but were still unsuccessful....it just shows though how desperate some people are to have children.
In respect to an age cap, well, that's another difficult one. The chances of having a successful IVF cycle dramatically reduce with age, especially with patients who are in their late 40s, but again, it comes down to the right to choose.
We were quoted £6000 a go, 3 goes = £18,000 who can afford that ?
I am sorry for people who can't have children, but I still think there are more important things for the money to be spent on. Saving lives, rather than bringing more lives into the world.
Fizzy Fish
18-07-08, 06:32 AM
Personally am pro choice - you can't dictate what is right for an individual in their particular situation.
Re IVF, that's an interesting one. I have some friends going through this at the mo - one is desperate to have a child and feels incomplete without, the other is very hopeful but trying not to get too obsessed and let the process take over their lives.
I'm on the side of supporting it being made available on the NHS, but only for a set number of cycles and definitely to an age limit - both levels should be linked to effectiveness of treatment for that age/stage.
I don't think it's fair to expect the NHS to keep on funding treatment with say a 5% chance of success, when there are so many other demands on its resources. If it really is that important to a couple, a lot (though I accept not all) can change their lifestyle to help accommodate the cost - sell the car, move to a smaller place, etc.
I do feel for people in that situation, but when it starts to come down to a choice between giving more money to them or more money to researching/providing cures for debilitating/life threatening conditions, it's much harder to justify.
Because why does anyone have an automatic 'right' to have a child? There are children dying every day from fatal diseases that the money would be better spent on.
I don't think bearing children is a 'right', but I do think for a large number of women it is a very basic 'need' to be able to conceive and carry a child. For some it makes them feel 'complete' as a woman.
Devil Biccy
18-07-08, 07:14 AM
What a good thread....... glad that it's not degenerated with unsavoury or bigotted comments.
Lots of folks have offered well-reasoned views on abortion one way and the other but wonder how many have actually been in the position of having to decide for themselves?
Those that have been there will know that the final decision is quite possibly the toughest and most emotionally traumatic thing that anyone can though.
It's only when one goes through it that ones true view is formed.
I'll leave it there.
I agree totally with what has been said here, if you have not had to make the choice you don't really know what goes through your mind at that moment and every year on that anniversary.
As for there being lots of children to adopt has anyone ever tried?? I did quite a few years back and filled out loads of paperwork/interviews and put in a few £K's only to be told that because we were a mixed race couple it would be very hard to bring a child up in our enviroment! and their were no mixed race babies or children under 5 in the whole of England that required adoption. So not as easy as it sounds.
When I worked in a hospital in the 90's part of my job was testing hormones for ladies going through IVF but the prof who was running the programme made sure that for every 3 private patients treated 1 NHS patient would be given IVF for free that way the whole system became self funding and no extra strain was put on the NHS.
Whilst I totally agree with everyone,s right to offer opinions, insights etc, has anyone ever been through the adoption or IVF process on here ? it would be interesting to hear others people,s take on the subject.
startrek.steve
18-07-08, 07:46 AM
Interesting thread.
[COLOR=black]I was born two months early and was severely deprived of oxygen (one proposed reason why I’m deaf)
Maria
So Maria,
Where do you stand on the recent debate about a deaf couple who wanted their eggs/sperm screened to ONLY choose to have deaf children? I work with the deaf, and a lot of them say being deaf is NOT a disability and shouldnt be screened out. Dont agree myself, nothing wrong with being deaf, but IMO it IS a physical defect, and if it can be scanned for it should be, otherwise where do you draw the line?
Steve
Alpinestarhero
18-07-08, 07:55 AM
So Maria,
Where do you stand on the recent debate about a deaf couple who wanted their eggs/sperm screened to ONLY choose to have deaf children? I work with the deaf, and a lot of them say being deaf is NOT a disability and shouldnt be screened out. Dont agree myself, nothing wrong with being deaf, but IMO it IS a physical defect, and if it can be scanned for it should be, otherwise where do you draw the line?
Steve
(i'll let maria know about your post when she gets home, or she might be able to reply from work)
To offer my opinion, "designing" our children is something that makes me nervous, especialy when its something like this - I can kind of understand wanting to be sure you don't have a severly disabled child who is only going to suffer in life...but that brings it aorund again to abortion almost.
I suppose the deaf couple want a deaf child so it stays "within" the deaf community; some deaf people don't like to mix at all with those that hear, either because of the communication problem, or the chip they may carry on their shoulder (yes, some do). I personally think the couple should just see what they have - chances are it will be deaf, but alternativly it might have good hearing - and therefore the ability to interact with deaf people (deaf parents, he/she will learn sign langauge anyway) and hearing people. I see that maria has few struggles with her hearing, she copes extremly well and sometimes its easy to forget she has a hearing impairment...but the things she does struggle with (telephone conversations sometimes, conversations with people who have strong accents, funny lip patterns, big bushy beards, whatever) make her upset sometimes, and thats when she wishes she could hear better.
Being deaf and waering hearing aids has its uses....why, just this morning I was annoying maria by singing the Umpa Lumpa song...she turned her hearing aids off and faced away from me so she couldn't hear and lipread :lol:
Flamin_Squirrel
18-07-08, 07:57 AM
I am sorry for people who can't have children, but I still think there are more important things for the money to be spent on. Saving lives, rather than bringing more lives into the world.
A couple who are desperate enough for kids to go through IVF are more likely to be in a stable relationship providing a good environment for children as opposed to your steriotypical chav woman breeding away without giving it a second thought.
We may not have a shortage of kids, but the number of those kids being brought up by two parents in a stable relationship is on the decline.
Perhaps a few thousand £ spend on IVF to encorage potentially good parents to bring up kids that'll grow up to become productive members of society is money well spent.
[quote=Flamin_Squirrel;1571862]
We may not have a shortage of kids, but the number of those kids being brought up by two parents in a stable relationship is on the decline.
What evidence do you have for this huge assertion? Reference please.
And there need be nothing wrong with a child/children being brought up in a stable loving relationship of one parent , or same sex parents, or Grandparents even.
Alpinestarhero
18-07-08, 08:18 AM
What evidence do you have for this huge assertion? Reference please.
And there need be nothing wrong with a child/children being brought up in a stable loving relationship of one parent , or same sex parents, or Grandparents even.
Thats true, my best mate is a well rounded dude, brought up mostly by his mum. On the toher hand, i have a cousin who is just a lost cause, "brought up" by two parents. I use the " " because they really didn't bring him up, they just shouted at him when he done wrong and never really gave much positive encouragment. Shame, he's a nice kid when you sit down and have a one-on-one chat with him
Flamin_Squirrel
18-07-08, 08:25 AM
[quote=Flamin_Squirrel;1571862]
We may not have a shortage of kids, but the number of those kids being brought up by two parents in a stable relationship is on the decline.
What evidence do you have for this huge assertion? Reference please.
And there need be nothing wrong with a child/children being brought up in a stable loving relationship of one parent , or same sex parents, or Grandparents even.
The number of single parents families is on the rise, so no assertation what so ever.
As for the second point, kids brought up in stable relationships tend to do better. That's not a slant on single parents etc, it's just acknoledgement that they've got a harder job to do.
[quote=Messie;1571872]
The number of single parents families is on the rise, so no assertation what so ever.
As for the second point, kids brought up in stable relationships tend to do better. That's not a slant on single parents etc, it's just acknoledgement that they've got a harder job to do.
Again reference please. I do not believe this to be the case, on either issue, and would like to see the evidence for myself on which you base these statements.
...stuff...
I just feel that it is the wrong thing to do. Yes fair enough there are circumstances where its not your fault you got pregnant, so on and so forth but my view on it in a similar situation to Paws's cousins situation would be (Laura I am not directing this at your cousin BTW) - your mess, deal with it. I would.
...some more stuff.
Got to disagree with this - as others have mentioned, what about in the case of rape - this also goes into the realms of 'the rights of the father'...not in the case of rape it doesn't IMO.
So - in summary I am pro choice - across the board...but I do believe that the 'client' should pay for IVF - this keeps everyone on an even keel and level playing field - currently it's a post code lottery which is grossly unfair. You could be quite wealthy and yet, because of your location you could be entitled to free IVF etc...
Flamin_Squirrel
18-07-08, 08:33 AM
Again reference please. I do not believe this to be the case, on either issue, and would like to see the evidence for myself on which you base these statements.
No particular reference. I just watch the news.
Got to disagree with this - as others have mentioned, what about in the case of rape - this also goes into the realms of 'the rights of the father'...not in the case of rape it doesn't IMO.
So - in summary I am pro choice - across the board...but I do believe that the 'client' should pay for IVF - this keeps everyone on an even keel and level playing field - currently it's a post code lottery which is grossly unfair. You could be quite wealthy and yet, because of your location you could be entitled to free IVF etc...
Fair point, I suggest if you,re morbidly obese you should pay for your treatment, similarly if you smoke and get cancer pay for your own treatment and if you drink and get cirosis, pay for your treatment, most women need IVF cos of a previous illness, endometrosis, ovarian cysts etc and then they should pay for there treatment ? why ? havent they already been through enough ?
No particular reference. I just watch the news.
+1 I find myself agreeing with the earlier post of FS...loving relationships, family stability etc. IMO the evidence is all around us, in the news, current affair programmes, soap operas etc. As alluded to in an interview on R4 a week ago it all began (the decline in family values etc) in the early sixties when a politician gleefully announced that "...we live in a permissive society".
+1 I find myself agreeing with the earlier post of FS...loving relationships, family stability etc. IMO the evidence is all around us, in the news, current affair programmes, soap operas etc. As alluded to in an interview on R4 a week ago it all began (the decline in family values etc) in the early sixties when a politician gleefully announced that "...we live in a permissive society".
We live in a throw away society Im afraid stingo, dont like something 'get rid of it' whether its your waistline or an unwanted pregnancy.
plowsie
18-07-08, 08:45 AM
Got to disagree with this - as others have mentioned, what about in the case of rape - this also goes into the realms of 'the rights of the father'...not in the case of rape it doesn't IMO.
So - in summary I am pro choice - across the board...but I do believe that the 'client' should pay for IVF - this keeps everyone on an even keel and level playing field - currently it's a post code lottery which is grossly unfair. You could be quite wealthy and yet, because of your location you could be entitled to free IVF etc...
Mr Stingo, see a few lines before in the post that the rape category would fall into, the certain circumstances part ;)
Fair point, I suggest if you,re morbidly obese you should pay for your treatment, similarly if you smoke and get cancer pay for your own treatment and if you drink and get cirosis, pay for your treatment, most women need IVF cos of a previous illness, endometrosis, ovarian cysts etc and then they should pay for there treatment ? why ? havent they already been through enough ?
Ah - the sympathy thing. Sometimes nature is so damn cruel. Whilst this (my comment) seems initially 'cold', this whole thing could be taken a step further in the 'drawing of the line' argument. It has to be drawn somewhere...I for instance would like to represent my country at a high profile sports events but due to certain circumstances I am unable to. However, at public expense it is possible that I may be able to 'fix' the problem and play sport after all.
A bit extreme I know...but where does the line get drawn? A screening process is a good idea and perhaps should be applied...but the drawing of the line would raise all sorts of questions/problems/dilemmas etc...
Mr Stingo, see a few lines before in the post that the rape category would fall into, the certain circumstances part ;)
Damn & blast...;-):smt004
No particular reference. I just watch the news.
Ok then I disagree with you because I have my own experience, I look around me and spend a lot of time with a lot of children. :rolleyes:
We'll have to agree to disagree
Ah - the sympathy thing. Sometimes nature is so damn cruel. Whilst this (my comment) seems initially 'cold', this whole thing could be taken a step further in the 'drawing of the line' argument. It has to be drawn somewhere...I for instance would like to represent my country at a high profile sports events but due to certain circumstances I am unable to. However, at public expense it is possible that I may be able to 'fix' the problem and play sport after all.
A bit extreme I know...but where does the line get drawn? A screening process is a good idea and perhaps should be applied...but the drawing of the line would raise all sorts of questions/problems/dilemmas etc...
No its not a sympathy thing at all, why should certain illnesse be treated for free and you should have to pay for others, where do you draw the line ?
We live in a throw away society Im afraid stingo, dont like something 'get rid of it' whether its your waistline or an unwanted pregnancy.
Indeed we do...another one of mankind's problems...
Flamin_Squirrel
18-07-08, 09:00 AM
Ok then I disagree with you because I have my own experience, I look around me and spend a lot of time with a lot of children. :rolleyes:
We'll have to agree to disagree
So you're basing your opinion solely on what you see and ignoring further evidence? It could be argued that's a fairly subjective viewpoint.
Following on from my comment in the other thread, I believe that if someone is not in a position to raise their child themselves, (unless they are specifically a surrogate mother of course!) then they should have an abortion.
If you haven't got the;
A) Money
B) Time
C) Will / state of mind
to raise a child, what's the point in bringing it in to the world just to put it up for adoption? As Lissa pointed out, there are enough sick / dying children in the world that require attention without adding more.
I accept that there may be psychological repercussions on a woman or a couple who decide to terminate their unborn child, but if they reach a conclusion based on factors A, B and C above, they should be able to accept that what they did was for the best. Life is for the living and all that.
Ok, adoption. I understand that the adoption process is not like going to a dog's home and saying 'I want that one'. It seems to me though, with the advent of IVF (thus women or couples can have 'their own' child), that adoption is almost a 'last resort'. Kind of like, 'I've got £3000 to buy a motorbike, I can't get a new one so I'll get a secondhand one'. We'd all like new but some people can't have one. (Unless you're Angelina Jolie and you can afford to have it both ways!) I think that people that do adopt or foster a child are fantastic. To take in a child and look after it like your own is very commendable.
IVF, I'm very much with Lissa on this one. I don't see people have a 'right' to have a child. I understand that it is a psychological 'need' for some people, which could arguably be fulfilled by adoption (unless part of satisfying the psychological need is to actually experience being pregnant and the pain of childbirth? Maybe it is). I do tend towards thinking though, that if it has been decided that someone is eligible for IVF, but there are also children that are suitable for adoption, that they should be forced to adopt rather than given money to create another new child. Saying that IVF is expensive (£6k per shot I think someone quoted?) is not looking at the bigger picture in my opinion. If you can't afford IVF, you arguably can't afford a child full stop. Once you have that child it will cost you a hell of a lot more to maintain it than it will to conceive it.
MY JUSTIFICATION: My views are based on my circumstances. I am 26, I'm married. My wife and I know we would like children at some point but not for several more years. We use all precautions to prevent an accidental conception. When the time comes that we want a child, if we couldn't have our own my views may change.
My thoughts on abortion stem from a good friend at school who accidentally got pregnant at 16 and had an abortion cos she knew she was in no position to do the child justice if she had had it. She has never regretted it.
My thoughts on adoption stem from another good friend at school who was adopted and also had 'brothers' and 'sisters' who were adopted in the same family. They functioned better than most blood families and all were very happy. Everyone at school knew he was adopted and no-one had any issues with it cos he was a sound lad.
I have no problems with IVF if people pay for it themselves. I just don't see it as something the NHS should pay for.
Cheers,
Matt
Miss Alpinestarhero
18-07-08, 09:44 AM
So Maria,
Where do you stand on the recent debate about a deaf couple who wanted their eggs/sperm screened to ONLY choose to have deaf children? I work with the deaf, and a lot of them say being deaf is NOT a disability and shouldnt be screened out. Dont agree myself, nothing wrong with being deaf, but IMO it IS a physical defect, and if it can be scanned for it should be, otherwise where do you draw the line?
Steve
Hmmm…..
I think that couple were wrong. They’re not wrong for wanting a deaf child, but they are wrong for trying to play god and choose traits that they want their child to have. (Im expecting this comment to open a whole “what if the child had a disabling illness/disease like MS/cancer that could be screened out”…). I don’t know what the outcome of the debate was or what happened but its awful to think that the couple would pretty much say “oh that child isn’t deaf, damn lets skip that child and try for another”
You’re right, being deaf is a physical defect because no matter what anybody says, it does hinder you and despite all the fantastic equipment that is available, you can never function 100%. However the great thing about life is it’s diversity. Would we not be playing god by screening out imperfect traits? My deafness makes me who I am and those around me like me for who I am.
To me, being deaf is not a disability and in some respects its brilliant. For example, I always get a good nights sleep, if I have a headache I’ll just switch my hearing aids off and (cheekily) if someone is annoying me I’ll just turn my hearing aids off and ignore them. However I do have days where I hate being deaf and wish I could hear like a “normal” person (but then…what is normal?). For those who don’t know – I can’t sign at all. I speak as well as a hearing person (or so I’ve been told) and pretty much function as hearing person and mix with hearing people. For another deaf person who can’t speak and only signs – I guess their deafness would be more of a physical defect because it creates larger barriers for them to overcome.
As I said, I think that no-one has a right to play god in terms of choosing traits that they would like their child to have i.e. eye colur/gender. However for really disabling illnesses/diseases such as MS and cancer I can see the argument. But like you said, where do you draw the line? In the example of deafness, does a child have to have a certain degree of deafness before they are deemed a physical defect?
Maria
dirtydog
18-07-08, 11:26 AM
if someone is annoying me I’ll just turn my hearing aids off and ignore them.
For those who don’t know – I can’t sign at all. I speak as well as a hearing person (or so I’ve been told) and pretty much function as hearing person and mix with hearing people. For another deaf person who can’t speak and only signs – I guess their deafness would be more of a physical defect because it creates larger barriers for them to overcome.
Lol that's what my brother does, well he turns away from you so he cant see you signing to him :rolleyes:
My brother is completely deaf (as is my cousin), doesn't wear hearing aids cos they make very little difference. He signs and lip reads. He can kind of talk but not many people can understand him apart from the swear words :lol:
As for being a bigger barrier than say being partially deaf, it may be the case but he's done well considering the crap level of schooling he received
Miss Alpinestarhero
18-07-08, 02:41 PM
Lol that's what my brother does, well he turns away from you so he cant see you signing to him :rolleyes:
My brother is completely deaf (as is my cousin), doesn't wear hearing aids cos they make very little difference. He signs and lip reads. He can kind of talk but not many people can understand him apart from the swear words :lol:
As for being a bigger barrier than say being partially deaf, it may be the case but he's done well considering the crap level of schooling he received
Lol great stuff :D Good to hear that im not the only one who takes advantage of being deaf :lol:
How old is he?
startrek.steve
18-07-08, 03:18 PM
Lol great stuff :D Good to hear that im not the only one who takes advantage of being deaf :lol:
would be nice to switch off the wife occasionally! I was gonna say turn off! but Im afraid of all the curt replies I may get!
Steve
Ceri JC
18-07-08, 04:06 PM
would be nice to switch off the wife occasionally! I was gonna say turn off! but Im afraid of all the curt replies I may get!
Steve
One of my deaf colleagues said this was a wonderful "side effect" of losing his hearing; after a hard day at work he'd put up his feet, stick the telly on and subtley turn off his hearing aid. He could then watch the telly (lip reading) and just say "mmm" or "yes, that's nice" periodically as his wife blethered on at him the moment he got in the door. :D
SupaSonic
18-07-08, 05:07 PM
.
dirtydog
18-07-08, 05:57 PM
Lol great stuff :D Good to hear that im not the only one who takes advantage of being deaf :lol:
How old is he?
He's 39 I think :confused:
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.