While that is true he has a lot of traits very similar to his biological father.
IVF, NHS & Kids waiting for adoption.
- Thread starter Resident
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
I'm not saying that, I'm saying if they want it and don't wish to adopt because "reasons" they should pay for it because having a child is a luxury and a choice it is not something that will impair somebody from living and result in them being disabled like losing a limb or getting cancer etc where they would actually need financial/NHS assistance to function on a day to day basis or die
So you're in favour of cutting finance and ultimately ending life due to your arbitrarily ****** up moral compass whilst at the same time arguing that people should get free funding to produce life ? Some cognitive dissonance there
To quote yourself
"Thankfully the people that actually make these decisions do not share your mindset."
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
What sort of traits?
It is very easy to highlight personality similarities and put it down to genes when it is simply a not so far fetched coincidence which is exhibited on someone that shares similar physical traits.
For example, they are both stubborn and difficult people. The stubbornness may be a trait from his upbringing but the way they frown and look when they are being stubborn are similar due to their physical features they share and so its easy to draw a connection between the childs personality and the fathers. I think it is very difficult to discern what exactly is nature and what exactly is nurture.
I can somewhat understand the reluctance to publically fund it but in reality its hardly a sole example of the NHS paying for something that's absolutely necessary for the physical health of a patient.
Do you believe that all such services should also be de funded?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 4,681
- Location
- Bromley, Kent
I'd be keen to know. I wasn't claiming either way as I don't have any data on the subject, just pure speculation. I had a google but can't find much - if you find any numbers on the subject then I'd be interested to see. I guess my assumptions come from stereotypes of either a pre-existing family with kids adopting another kid, or an older couple fostering (which I believe are specifically different). No idea what it's like in reality. Might even be different between countries/cultures
- GP
Edit: Found this - https://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/adoption_stats
Home/Neighborhood Adoption Statistics
- Almost half of privately adopted children are the only child living in the home.
To me that means that at least 51% of adopting families either have biological children or another adopted child in the home - the split isn't mentioned BUT it means that roughly 50% do not have 'siblings' - thats' a much higher % then I thought so I would imagine your line of thought is more accurate than mine here. Stats are a bit old as it looks like its from 2007, plus American... reasonable guide though
I don't want to go into too much detail on a public forum. But he is very, very agressive and has been in trouble for it... just like his biological father.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,668
That only works if you apply it to everyone out there who is plonking kids out like McDonalds plonk out burgers...
Yep - Everything you've said!!
That's never how it feels to the afflicted, though and a big factor in the mental health issues a lot of childless people face.
When you see every day how many kids are born to awful parents that should have been locked up long ago... when people keep asking you how come you don't have kids yet (and the answer is always, "Oh, you can just adopt", as if it were as cheap and easy as popping down the shops for a pint of milk)... when all your friends and family start having their own kids and rub it in your face by dragging you along to baby showers and christenings and birthday parties... when everyone says you'd make a wonderful parent, yet you have to look at all the Chavscum beating their kids with one hand while munching on a McChavvy with the other... when the one and only thing you always wanted was to be a mother, but cannot and yet you're surrounded by kids every time you go outside the front door.... Yes, it starts to feel like someone is punishing you.
But when there's a possible treatment that only costs a few grand, which you're denied on a technicality, while the government spends many times that funding a pair of careless clueless ******** who can't figure out how to use a condom - That IS punishing.
They also have the luxury of killing the thing, if it starts showing signs of being a wrong'un...
A very good point.
Oh, it's a choice, is it?
So why are we supporting all those people on benefits who choose to have kids? Why do those with kids get even more benefits?
Would it not be better to fund IVF for parents who so desperately want children that they'd chew your arm off, rather than people who only use them so they can get a 2-car driveway in a nicer part of town?
So you're in favour of cutting finance and ultimately ending life due to your arbitrarily ****** up moral compass whilst at the same time arguing that people should get free funding to produce life ? Some cognitive dissonance there
To quote yourself
"Thankfully the people that actually make these decisions do not share your mindset."
Either I'm not putting my point across very well, or you just don't understand what I'm trying to say.
I didn't say not to treat people that have injured themselves, or inflicted damage upon themselves deliberately, I'm trying to put across that someone has as much right to IVF if it's needed, and they qualify, as an injured person does to resources to help them.
I still stand by what I said, that I am glad people like you aren't making those decisions.
sorry but not giving someone something desirable (but not essential) for free is not "punishment"
perhaps a woman with small breasts would like a breast enlargement operation, if the NHS chooses not to give her one they're not "punishing" her - she'd be quite fortunate to get one for free when plenty of others save up and pay for something like that
AFAIK he is a doctor, he might well be involved in making those sorts of decisions
That's a worrying thought.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,926
- Location
- Rutland
Minusorange a doctor? I would be extremely surprised.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,668
If that's what I wrote, then fine...
I might be getting his username confused with yours. One of you is a doctor right?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,926
- Location
- Rutland
I’m a doctor yeah, and now I’m contemplating a name change!
Maybe I'm dyslexic, I guess both usernames begin with Min... and are of similar length...
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,720
If we fund one we should fund them all or none where the decision to have it done is based on a choice rather than necessity
Not a doctor doctor no
My estimate is purely anecdotal and guess work based on going through the course and the people I met. I've never really looked in to any of the facts or figures. I don't think I came across one person/family where they already had children and were looking to adopt. Obviously that's not to say it never happens, but I'm sure it's well in to the minority.
My wife and I recently adopted and we have a child from natural birth before hand. There was no medical reason we couldn’t have another but it’s just never happened. We chose to adopt rather than IVF as NHS funding wasn’t available and we would rather spend the money on the kids rather than making one. We met a lot of people during our training and most were adopting child 1. The stories they told of what they had been through in trying to conceive and the effects it had on their mental health I am glad they had the option of IVF first so they at least knew they had tried even if they couldn’t afford it privately. It is not expensive on a country wide scale. It is regulated and not offered indefinitely. You get 3 lots on the NHS and only for first child we were told. It’s a tiny cost for what it can do to help someone dealing with the effects of being unable to conceive. Unless you have tried and failed to have a child then to have no right to ever guess or assume how that will have affected someone.
Pretty retarded statement.
Ivf is a triumph of evolution, our intelligence has improved our ability to breed.