A discussion overheard on the radio a couple of days ago has been rattling round my skull, thought I'd chuck it out to see if anyone else heard the same, and maybe thoughts. In the fertility legislation is a clause that for women to be considered for the treatment they should display a family home i.e. a father for the household. This I presume was to defend the childs right to a two parent family. The government has decided to drop this obligation of the female populace, acknowledging a womans right to have children. I find this extremely weird. For a start where would "right to have a child" come from ? Scientists also have the ability to manufacture sperm, linked with the above, the demise of the male ?
This reminds me of a crazy book I read awhile back, by some crazy nazi-feminist. She said that men were nothing but "broken women" and that they should all be killed, except for a small "breeding population" kept on an island somewhere. OR, since scientists have the technology so women can produce asexually, they should be just completley killed off. Stupid, I know, but since the demise of men was brought up... Anyway, it's a confusing matter. You think *most* women would do their best to set up a stable life with a husband/father type figure before trying for fertility treatments, but not everyone's the same - I know there are some women that want to have a child, but not have a man in their life, or a father for thier kid. Some mothers would handle that situation wonderfully, and it would be alright, some think they would be able to do it and woudln't be able to. But what about the kid, every child should know both their parents, but its' not always the most desirable situation. There are just SO many angles you can look at this from... I mean, of course a child has a right to a two parent family, but as that's NOT the best situation (ie abusive parents) every situation should be looked act, but it sadly doesn't work that way...
whats wrong with 1 parent families? why dont government keep their big brown noses out of it for a change?
Nothing, no-one said there was. Should everybody have the right to require the NHS to give them a family if they don't want a partner ?
Children are not a right, they're a responsibility. Where fertility impacts on wider society, the government should have some degree of control. Despite the early-on disastrous consequences for female babies in China (due to cultural prejudices) I'm supportive of the state's right to dictate a one child policy where necessary. Equally, if women choose not to have partners and yet want to have children, they should be able to demonstrate that they can support that child single handedly. Otherwise you're just storing up potential problems and creating an unnecessary burden on the welfare state....
If couples can't concieve without medical support then is shouldn't happen. It's a dodgey thing to say, but then as single man without children I may not be able to father kids, so the same rule applies to me.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm not against fertility threatment and wealth isn't the point, the point is for children to be born to families capable of a minimum level of support. This does not suggest wealth, but neither does it suggest abject poverty. Children are a social responsibility to society, rather than an inherent biological right....
I'd still suggest that wealth would be required to meet any minimum level, one would still need to support oneself and handle the additional costs of childcare etc. not easy on any average wage. Apparently the human rights act disagrees, it appears to be read by government that every woman has the right to a child irrespective.
Indeed it does. Despite being an ardent supporter of human rights, that's one area of disagreement for me. Rights must come with responsibilities....
I think anyone who can prove themselves to be financially stable enough should have the right to adopt and no more. Im not sure how to justify it, i just dont see a need for any more.
Big generalisations I know. I believe the female urge to mother is far greater than the male desire to father, our drive is mainly to copulate, the females is to form relationships to enable motherhood. From this I do understand that some women feel a great deal of distress from being unable to naturaly become pregnant, and I think it is wonderful that science has enabled people to fulfill these desires. I just can't see a justification for allowing single women the right. If they haven't got the emotional make-up to form relationships with another adult I'd be deeply unsure about their ability to form healthy relationships with children.
