CompleteIdiot Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 NHS could pay surrogates ?15,000 to have babies for gays Surrogate mothers could be given up to ?15,000 of Health Service money to have children for gay couples, it emerged yesterday. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=511480&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartComments Should the NHS be funding people to have vanity babies to go with their lifestyle choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig_ Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 That really is the perfect Daily Mail story isn't it? Only way they could improve it is if they were paying immigrants to have babies! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompleteIdiot Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 That really is the perfect Daily Mail story isn't it? Only way they could improve it is if they were paying immigrants to have babies! Gay terrorist asylum seekers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neave Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Gay terrorist asylum seekers? On benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Yep- people should really be starting to accept that they make certain choices, or are a certain way, and that is not compatible with having children Being gay does not mean being infertile They are not suffering from infertility, so the NHS should NOT be funding this sick social experiment I am white, my wife is white Does this mean if we want a black or asian baby the NHS will pay a surrogate mother to provide one of these for us? Of course not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompleteIdiot Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Oops the link should really be: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=511480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Gay babies? So does this mean it is genetic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So they're going to turn Chavs into baby farms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 It really would be the perfect Daily Mail story. Colonel Blenkinsop from the Home Counties could write in to the letters page the next day and say that it made his blood boil and stuff, it'd be great! That said, it could only really appear in the Daily Mail if the original post was edited to start with : "So, they're PAYING surrogate mothers for gays?", and said that it was political correctness gone mad at least twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompleteIdiot Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Gay babies? So does this mean it is genetic? No. They'll just be encouraged to be gay by their two dads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So they're going to turn Chavs into baby farms? Going to? Chavs manage it themselves now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boaby Ewing Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So if I'm following this right, wimmin in need of financial help are going to be forced to have sex with a gay robot, who's metallic tip has been dipped in bad Aids. All so Adam and Steve can blow their crsytal meth fund on trendy little baby booties, before chucking the toddler in the sea once it goes out of fashion? Political correctness gone MAD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So if I'm following this right, wimmin in need of financial help are going to be forced to have sex with a gay robot, who's metallic tip has been dipped in bad Aids. All so Adam and Steve can blow their crsytal meth fund on trendy little baby booties, before chucking the toddler in the sea once it goes out of fashion? Political correctness gone MAD. YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP. :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigaro Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So if I'm following this right, wimmin in need of financial help are going to be forced to have sex with a gay robot, who's metallic tip has been dipped in bad Aids. All so Adam and Steve can blow their crsytal meth fund on trendy little baby booties, before chucking the toddler in the sea once it goes out of fashion? Political correctness gone MAD. Perfectly accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CompleteIdiot Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/homoprevention.html * *Site may not be entirely serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I P Knightley Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So if I'm following this right, wimmin in need of financial help are going to be forced to have sex with a gay robot, who's metallic tip has been dipped in bad Aids. All so Adam and Steve can blow their crsytal meth fund on trendy little baby booties, before chucking the toddler in the sea once it goes out of fashion? Political correctness gone MAD. Nearly right. They won't have to dip in to the meth fund as the innocent taxpayer will, of course, support this baby through the benefits system. While they're out 'cottaging,' the disgusting practice of meeting with strangers in public toilets for gay sex. The PC brigade can claim another victory against the forces of common sense and decency. We're all going to Hell in a handcart. However - should anything come of this beyond the pages of the Mail, I'll be effing livid. 20 grand for IVF treatments and then this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 You do wonder dont you? Couples with fertility problems are afforded little enough funding for their attempts at having a family, then the limited funds are wasted on this facrs What will be the true cost, financial, societal and psychological for these poor little gaybies born to these couples? Still, if we didnt do it I suppose it would breach their "right to family life" under the human rights act Its just a shame that the taxpayer ahs to fund it all Equal rights for gaybies!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 The Daily Mail is such a *@$!ing rag. It does raise ethical issues though. If there is a cut off date for women to be allowed fertility treatment as they would be too old to be a mother, then surely the same argument goes to gay couples? That's not to say same sex couples wouldn't be great parents as an older woman may not be, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I also don't see why the taxpayer has to fund it at all be it for gay or straight couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 The Daily Mail is such a *@$!ing rag. It does raise ethical issues though. If there is a cut off date for women to be allowed fertility treatment as they would be too old to be a mother, then surely the same argument goes to gay couples? That's not to say same sex couples wouldn't be great parents as an older woman may not be, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I also don't see why the taxpayer has to fund it at all be it for gay or straight couples. They should fund it for straight couples with no children They have a medical problem, we can help them, I have no problem in using tax payers cash to bring happiness to these people, considering how much NHS cash is wasted on, say methadone etc Being gay is not a medical condition. In fact it is not a condition, but a sexual orientation that prevents the from having children with each other, but not with other people (as do other sexual orientations such as necrophilia and paedophilia) though Idont see the government funding surrogacy for paedos (yet, but I wont hold my breath) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blondejamtart Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I was always under the impression that for anyone to have a child was a privilege, and not a "right"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Gay babies? So does this mean it is genetic? Another NHS farce get the waiting lists down FIRST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibrahim Tall Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 If two men were meant to be able to have children together it wouldn't be physically impossible(naturally). Adoption i could possibly agree with in certain cases but even then i'm not sure, the kid would be tormented at school even if they were "good parents". Politically correctness gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 [/u][/i][/b] They should fund it for straight couples with no children They have a medical problem, we can help them, I have no problem in using tax payers cash to bring happiness to these people, considering how much NHS cash is wasted on, say methadone etc Being gay is not a medical condition. In fact it is not a condition, but a sexual orientation that prevents the from having children with each other, but not with other people (as do other sexual orientations such as necrophilia and paedophilia) though Idont see the government funding surrogacy for paedos (yet, but I wont hold my breath) My point is if you can't have children be it for a medical reason or due to sexual orientation then that's the way it is. Slightly harsh perhaps on those with medical ailments and Malthusian to the max, but that's my thinking in an already overpopulated world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Jambo 60 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 My point is if you can't have children be it for a medical reason or due to sexual orientation then that's the way it is. Slightly harsh perhaps on those with medical ailments and Malthusian to the max, but that's my thinking in an already overpopulated world. Boris my wife had 2 miscarriges but we still have 2 lovely boys. We are natural but had a lot of grief to get my kids. No nhs help for them gays dont deserve kids sorry IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.