Donate SIGN UP

Is this a good use of NHS funds given the present financial situation?

Avatar Image
Baldric | 10:43 Tue 22nd May 2012 | News
69 Answers

Considering the NHS was founded to provide health care for the masses


21 to 40 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image

Having children is a lifestyle choice - I fail to see why my taxes should pay for anybody's (straight or gay) lifestyle choice.
14:01 Tue 22nd May 2012
Because the reason that a homosexual couple are unable to have a child is not the same as any failure of the natural conception process stopping a heterosexual couple.

The suggestion that public money should be spent helping a homosexual couple obtain a child is laughable.
Ok someone let the genie out so I'll join in. Unusually I agree 100% with hopkirk. A same sex couple cannot concieve, that's a fact of biology, so why should the NHS be mis used in trying to circumvent that that is not possible in nature. Planks/Ummm think it through!
I didn't say I agreed that IVF should be funded by the NHS. I'm on the fence on this one.

I do think that gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
As with my answer on the previous thread, regardless of your sexuality, I don't believe IVF should be available to anyone on the NHS unless under very strict guidelines. While the service still runs, I would happily direct anyone to it if asked as it used to be part of my job, however my personal opinion remains that it should not NHS funded for the main part.
Please refer to my previous answer. If homosexual men want a child all they have to do is choose a potential mother that is fertile. As for lesbians what are the chances that they are both infertile. I agree with hopkirk it is ridiculous.
True Jom, so they probably won't be seeking IVF.

My mate went down the turkey baster route.
ummmm suddenly thanksgiving and christmas have lost their appeal.

It worked though :-)
-- answer removed --
As I've said, adoption. Let's look after and nurture those already born instead of creating new life at such a cost.
-- answer removed --
People tend to want babies though. It's not often newborns are put up for adoption.
"Surely then heterosexual couples who have fertility issues and therefore cannot conceive should not be considered either?"

I do agree that IVF should not be available for anyone on the NHS, let's get that out of the way.

However standard couples that have thus far failed to conceive are in no way comparable to same sex couples who, inexplicably want a child, presumably as some sort of accessory.
-- answer removed --
I want a Bugatti Veyron.

I doubt the government will help me out at great expense to the taxpayer though!
-- answer removed --

\\\\\ Do you think that because they are gay they are incapable of maternal/paternal urges and feelings?\\\

That is a very good question, to which i do not know the answer.

I thought that they gave up all those "inner feelings" for the obscure pleasures of being gay.
-- answer removed --
I suppose the depressing answer in this litigation-happy society is that the cost of providing the treatment is less than the cost of paying damages when some head-in-the-clouds court of law decides that refusing IVF facilities to somebody was a violation of their human rights.

\\\I don't see why, in this day, people should feel that they have to give up any plans to have children because they are attracted to their own sex.\\

Because biology and the propagation of the species depends upon heterosexuality. Give that up for whatever reason and you give up the natural biological equipment to have offspring.

In my opinion.

21 to 40 of 69rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Is this a good use of NHS funds given the present financial situation?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.