Oceania IVF babies and single women.

What do people think about this?

I personally believe that single women should NOT have access to IVF technology for conceiving children.

IVF should only be used for couples who are having difficulty having children, that is what the treatment was intended for anyway.

If a single woman really does want to have a child, why can't she adopt? There are so many children in orphanges around the world, it just doesnt make sense that she would want to go around it in some technological way.

 

I may be wrong here, but don't the authorities have rules that don't allow single women to adopt? Or if they do, they make it a great deal harder than if the woman is half of a married couple.

 

Why should a single woman with problems conceiving be disciminated against when other women with no fertility problems can just throw their legs in the air to any guy they see to get pregnant.

Seems a bit discriminatory to me.

 

To be perfectly honest I do ot know the rules about adoption. But in any case, I really think that it is preferable to raise a child who needs a home, if a woman was in that situation.

Alternatively, she could get a boyfriend or a husband to help, couldn't she? After all, there must be about 3 billion straight males in the world!!!!

 

So you're saying that if a single woman wants a child, she should go out and hook up with the first man she finds, simpy because they're single?

 

Why should a single woman with problems conceiving be disciminated against when other women with no fertility problems can just throw theirlegs in the air to any guy she sees to get pregnant.

Seems a bit discriminatory to me.

The single women who are trying to adopt are fertile!

 

IVF is a medical procedure.

God gave us reproductive organs so they can be used to reproduce!

 

So...hypothetically. A single, infertile woman wants to have a child. In your opinion, should she be allowed IVF to have her OWN child? Or would she have to go through beaurecratic morons in an attempt to adopt a child she may never get?

 

A single woman with Fertility issues should have the same rights to the IVF programme as a woman in a relationship.

To discriminate either way, is a gross injustice to either person.

Is a single woman going to love the child any less than a woman in a relationship?

 

I personally agree with you, Shadowfire, but I'd be interested to see what Marvin thinks.

 

The point was about single fertile women, by the way. I thought I made that quite clear. I appologise if I did not.

Another question: Howard says that children have the right be born with the presence of a mother and a father.

What do people think of that????

 

So everything Johnny says is law?

I believe a child has the right to a family that loves, cherishes and nurtures them, whether that be with one parent or four.

 

EDIT: 4 posts were made while I wrote this, so you can ignore the first paragraph if you want.

If a single, infertile woman wants to have a baby, it's not to help the world. It's to have her own legitimate offspring. I acknowledge that there are far too many children who need to be adopted, but wouldn't you want the whole package including birth, rather than miss out on those first few years?

Now a single fertile woman doesn't have quite as much of an argument. I'm not saying they should go out and have unprotected sex with any guy off the street, but patience is a virtue. Eventually they'll probably meet someone who is willing to have a child. You still can't prevent them from having IVF treatment simply because there are already kids out there, though.

 

So everything Johnny says is law? Well, of course! He's the guy who won the election remember!!!!!

 

That was supposedly to represent us, not make our decisions for us.

Well...maybe not...

 

Heh...represent us...good one Shara

For the record, I think it's wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they're single and therefore obviously incapable of raising children. *cough* However, I think they should be encouraged to at least consider alternatives, IVF was designed to help infertile couples and single women, not specifically ones who feel the pressure of their biological clock.

 

Another question: Howard says that children have the right be born with the presence of a mother and a father.

What do people think of that????

What a crock of bantha dung.

Biologically, as soon as the male inseminates the female, he buggers off.

Johnie has made a moral choice for himself. While I don't disagree that children should be brought up in a stable relationship between two adults, I certainly do not see a single woman being incapable of provided everything a couple could.

 

Now a single fertile woman doesn't have quite as much of an argument. I'm not saying they should go out and have unprotected sex with any guy off the street, but patience is a virtue. Eventually they'll probably meet someone who is willing to have a child. You still can't prevent them from having IVF treatment simply because there are already kids out there, though.

I agree with the part about having patience. I think she should just wait to find a man she likes and loves, and just do it the old fashioned way. And she should be patient. If she really wants a child, then adoption is the most legitimate way of getting a child, it wouls seem to me.

 

For a fertile woman, Adoption is NOT the most legitimate way of having a child. SEXUAL INTERCOURSE is.

And most likely a damn sight quicker with all the laws to prevent bad parents from adopting children.

 

I acknowledge that there are far too many children who need to be adopted, but wouldn't you want the whole package including birth, rather than miss out on those first few years?

There are a lot of VERY young orphans out there. and there are so many babies in countries like China, where they are literally dumped at the doorstep of orphanges. I don't think that a whole heap of the child's life would be missed out on, because most parenthood happens later on anyway.

EDIT:
Anyway adoption is more legitimate in my opinion than IVF, for a fertile woman. For the reason mentioned above.

 

Well, it will ultimately depend on how they categorise IVF. For most medical procedures, you generally need a valid reason for it. "Not getting any" doesn't count. If it's considered to be in the same category as plastic surgery though, then you have another problem altogether because anyone can have it if they have the money. I don't believe it should be accessible to anyone that isn't infertile, though. It'd be kinda like giving someone a prosthetic leg just because they think it'd look cool.

 

^ I heard something similar to that once, but I think the guy wanted to have a robotic eye or something...I can't remember....

 

Imagine being the child, never knowing your father...never knowing what he looked like, what his job was, never knowing your own heritage...

 

Imagine being an adopted child, not knowing who either of your real parents are. It's a difficult situation for the child either way, but there are plenty of people around who grew up without knowing their father. Luke Skywalker, for instance.

Sorry, I had to say it.

 

I had feeling someone would say that, it is a perfect chance.

What about not ever having a father? Someone to look up to? A childhood without a father can make people go bad. For example, Anakin Skywalker. Look what he became!