Cantr II Discussion Forum

Apparently any IVF treatment provided by the NHS (National Health Service - which covers all illness/accidents etc etc without any cost for any British Citizen) will now be the preserve of heterosexual partnerships.

There has always been the clause that states that the 'need for a father' should be taken into account (as such - discriminating single mother and lesbian parents) this is likely to change to 'the need for a mother and father'.

Also - any couple receiving IVF treatment have to be screened for 'parental suitability'. No one screens natural conception like this - why should anyone have to proove themselves to be good parents (vague reminders of forced sterilisation of certain populations in the last century by various rulers (Jews and Nazi Germany being the most obvious one)).

The Government here seem to be moving towards a more 'traditional' concept of family - and one that if enforced is highly discriminatory.

Um... well, neither lesbians nor single mothers can be parents by themselves. At least not naturally. IVF should be restricted to heterosexual parents, in my opinion. Not entirely sure I even approve of IVF... from a strictly neutral point of view.

Forced sterilisation sounds a lot worse than it has to be... because of the difficulty of drawing a line. *he shrugs*

My views on this are likely controversial. But in my opinion, there has to be a line. Playing with nature leads to problems... ones that are rarely considered.

EDITED: 'cos yours trully has no idea what IVF is.

Nature defines the needs for two parents because two parents are required for conception. You can say its bollocks, but what I said is based purely on fact, not on any individual cases. I am sure there are single mums, and lesbian parents, who are better parents than many heterosexual couples. But that doesn't changes the fact that nature demands two parents, the male and female.

So in answer to your point... says nature.

The difficulty here is saying how far is too far? Are we really going beyond our boundaries with IVF? We already do and produce a whole host of things that aren't, strictly speaking, "natural". Is isn't "natural" for humans to fly, but we build aircraft anyways. It isn't natural to build cars or apartment buildings but we do anyways. Now maybe you would say that these things are bad too... some people would take that position and that is fine. Where I would draw the line for whether we should do something or not is whether we can be reasonably responsible with it. Along those lines, I don't really trust humanity, with, say, a nuclear bomb, and even IVF I haven't completely made up my mind about, since there is the possibility of eugenics coming into play.

If you want to take a different tact, you could say that it is perfectly natural to build cars, planes, nuclear bombs etc. because it is within human capacity to do so. Likewise it is within human capacity to provide lesbians and single mothers with the opportunity to have children without the direct help of a man.

Being products of nature, everything we build is just as natural as, say, a beaver dam. But if we define nature in that manner, then the term natural loses any significant meaning since it comes to mean "everything that exists".

Basically what I'm saying is this: the fact that something is natural or not has no bearing whatsoever on its moral import. Examples of things that are natural but considered morally reprehensible (depending on culture and such) include killing, rape, etc.

And again the whole idea that what is "natural" is good for you is what spurs on the propaganda behind homeopathy, if I may diverge slightly. People will go out and buy potentially dangerous drugs (labelled as food, of course) that have not been properly tested because they've been convinced that what is natural is good, and what is un-natural, bad. Nightshade and poisonous mushrooms are natural too

Anyways, that's my rant.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean, Hallucinatingfarmer. What is everyone talking about?

IVF = in vitro fertilization

ie. frozen sperm

Oh, that.

Well, I don't blame them for screening people. They do it here too. I'd go into it, but I don't feel like it.

They've always screened people for that, though. Since it was invented.

It's somewhat more complicated than that fleegle...

Giving those who can not conceive the option to, may not be 'natural', but neither is genetically modifying the food you eat, feeding cows ground up sheep remains to make burgers, keeping someone alive via a ventilator or other life support etc. etc.
As humans, we regularly interfere and change what is 'natural' - sometimes with AWFUL effects (pollution and climate change) but, the possibility of a child for those who 'naturally' can not conceive - I don't see that as a bad thing.

As for a definition of family - why should the definition of family be governed by the 'natural' course of things?

Why should 'unconventional families' be discriminated against in this way, in a country where a lot recently (same sex partnership register as the most major recent leap) has been done to reduce that discrimination?

Like I said, whether something is considered "natural" or not has no moral import. People have a tendency to equate natural with "good" and unnatural with "bad", but this makes very little sense. Yes, I agree that genetically modified food was a bad idea, especially the varieties of modified seed that reproduce and muck up the ecosystem. I'm not trying to identify which things are good and which are bad. As I said, my own position on IVF isn't clear, and I deliberately avoided addressing it directly.

If we are discussing the morality of IVF, the fact that it is unnatural or not should have no bearing on whether we determine it to be right or wrong.

I fail to see what's so unnatural about an organic egg being insemenated with organic semen anyway.

Two things come to mind. First in making decisions such as the best interest of the child. For example, some studies show that a girl raised without a father in the house are more likely to become a teen mother. I don't necessarily agree with the arguement, but can understand the arguement.

I think part of the problem is that this is a government funded program, so taxpayers who disagree with end up funding it. As the proceedure is not necessary for the health of anyone and in fact probably increases risk for the woman, I would rather see all IVF privately funded.

Of course thats an American perspective. I suspect my views on the role of government don't match most of those on the other side of the pond...

*avoids lengthy post*

Adopt.