BABIES FOR GAYS CARE OF THE STATE!
The continual perversion of the NHS by ideological driven LEFT WING politicians will sicken all those of us who think HEALTH should be the first priority of the HEALTH Service. Comes the news that surrogate mothers could be given up to £15,000 of Health Service money to have children for gay couples. This follows the news yesterday on how scientists at Newcastle University have applied for permission to turn female bone marrow into sperm, which could remove the need for men to create life. The technology, already pioneered in mice, would allow lesbian couples to have children that were biologically their own. Gay men could follow suit by using the technique to make eggs from their bone marrow.
Under Labour, which is heavily influenced by the likes of the Stonewall extreme gay lobby group, the State has become an enthusiastic advocate for the militant gay lobby. It is using structures like the NHS to now advance depraved concepts such as women producing babies for gays and converting female bone marrow to sperm all to push this degenerate agenda forward. Of course many gay people themselves are appalled by all of this however it is the extreme gay lobby agenda that government has signed up to and believe me, much more will follow as the State becomes the key propagandist for militant gays.
David Vance
35 Comments
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (35)
Didn't Churchill speak of the dangers of "preverted science" under nazism. This is perverted science: unnatural and destructive of the moral foundations of our society and science.
Fascinating developments. What a time to live in!
Craig Venter announced recently that he can create life from scratch. It won't be too long before we can create the first human.
We become God. Sad.
Allan wrote:
"This is perverted science: unnatural "
Chemotherapy and surgery is unnatural too. So what?
There is no such thing as perverted science (knowledge). It's how you use it that matters, and of course how you obtain it.
Why is tax money going to be paid to the surrogates? Isn't this a private transaction between private parties? If the buyers can't afford to pay the surrogate themselves, tough luck - they shouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund their desire for a baby.
David,
Looking about the world and its incessant warring I wonder if we could improve on what "God" has brought into being.
Dawkins,
"I wonder if we could improve on what "God" has brought into being."
Remember you're talking to somebody who thinks that the Bible is non-fiction.
Apparently medical science has let us down horribly since the days of the OT when people used to live to be several hundred years old!
LOL @ Frank & The Methusaleh Conspiracy
No Frank, chemotherapy and surgery are medical advances - this is not an advance. Creating a child by tweaking the cells of a female to be the DNA vector of a male-equivalent is perverted and anti-natural, not just unnatural.
Do you, Frank, consider it to be an advance?
Allan, if "unnatural" is irrelevant then you shouldn't have brought it up.
As for perverted and anti-natural, the first is just a restatement of the fact you don't like it, and the second makes no sense. So far it just sounds like you're just loudly asserting that you do not like it, and have no rational reasons to offer.
Before we all jump from mice to men it may be good to read some background to this story:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11601-bone-stem-cells-turned-into-primitive-sperm-cells.html
I wonder if a woman could fertilise her own egg. If lesbians, why not single women? Women will have complete control over their reproduction. Royals could maintain pure bloodlines.
I wonder what effect this will have on the children. Studies have shown that children fare better subject to a married male/female relationship.
If children are affected, would this be proof that the procedure is unethical? The fact there are many children that don't live in the 'traditional' family unit, is not a defense. An 'is' does not imply an 'ought'.
Frank
In fact, preference does provide a rational basis for moral decision. People do it every day too. We make decisions on whether something is good or bad based on happiness. Allen is justified to object to something because it makes him feel uncomfortable.
Upon what ethical basis do make a moral choice?
Frank, it is self-evident that it is natural for a child to be conceived of a male and a female. Anything else is not and that is a fact. My opinion is that it is a perversion of medical science.
I am surprised that you have entered this discussion. You have long made it clear that you consider pregnancy to be so risky to a woman that abortion is most definitely preferred and that women who wish to have abortions should not be presuaded otherwise for that same reason. However, your belief that a miscarriage and an abortion are the same does allow you to by-pass any consideration of the effect of human intervention so you probably don't see any difference between a child born of a natural male-female union and one resulting from something else.
Allan,
"Frank, it is self-evident that it is natural for a child to be conceived of a male and a female. Anything else is not and that is a fact."
It is (still) self-evident that whether or not something is natural is irrelevant. Disease, death, and infertility are natural. Chemotherapy, surgery and IVF are not. That doesn't mean that disease, death and infertility are to be welcomed and medical intervention is perverted.
Nature is also far stranger than you imagine, and is full of oddities such chimeras, hermaphrodites, and even creatures that spontaneously change sex.
Allan would you say that this chicken is perverted or is it just anti-natural?
How about the millions who believe the story of the virgin conception of Jesus - are they all perverted, or just anti-natural?
<snip strawmen and waffle>
So Allan, have you got any rational reasons to offer or are you just going to repeat the same irrelevancies and falsehoods over and over as per usual?
Frank, exactly what illness or malady is this development solving?
Allan, who claimed it was solving an illness or malady?
Please try to learn the difference between an argument and a rebuttal to an argument.
CKER,
"An 'is' does not imply an 'ought'."
Just so. And that's why arguments about something being 'unnatural' are neither here nor there.
"Allen is justified to object to something because it makes him feel uncomfortable."
Allan can of course say what he wants, but 'justified'? The fact that Allan doesn't like something is hardly an excuse for limiting other people's liberty, nor for making others suffer.
"Upon what ethical basis do make a moral choice?"
I'm not exactly sure what you are asking there. I could guess but it would probably be more interesting if you explained :-)
"The fact that Allan doesn't like something is hardly an excuse for limiting other people's liberty, nor for making others suffer."
Who is suffering, Frank, and from what illness or malady are they suffering?
Frank,
I'm not being perverse here (let others speak of perversion) but I do take issue with this.
We humans are part of nature. It must follow then that anything we do or are capable of doing is natural.
On the other hand, the virgin conception you rehearsed can be considered a supernatural, or unnatural, occurrence.
Or plain hooey if you will :0)
Allan,
"Who is suffering, Frank"
They're not (because you're not in charge) and that's how it should stay.
"and from what illness or malady are they suffering"
If you think that suffering only comes from illness and malady then from what illness or malady do slaves suffer?
Dawkins,
"We humans are part of nature. It must follow then that anything we do or are capable of doing is natural."
Indeed, the 'natural' distinction is itself artificial :-)
Frank,
Ooh, I like that! Hobbes would have like it too :0)
liked
Frank wrote:
"The fact that Allan doesn't like something is hardly an excuse for limiting other people's liberty, nor for making others suffer."
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:30PM | Frank O'Dwyer
So Frank, who are suffering and how does this reported project assist those who are suffering?
Allan,
Who is suffering? Grant-hungry researchers?
Allan,
Have you got a rational coherent reason to object to this or not?
I also asked you some other questions in this thread. Feel free to answer them.
I can't see what medical condition this proposed project resolves? Two women cannot have children simply because one of them is not a male.
But Frank wrote that:
"The fact that Allan doesn't like something is hardly an excuse for limiting other people's liberty, nor for making others suffer."
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:30PM | Frank O'Dwyer
So Frank, who are suffering and how does this reported project assist those who are suffering?
Allan,
"I can't see what medical condition this proposed project resolves?"
Firstly are we supposed to be impressed that you can't see something, or for that matter surprised?
Secondly, what is the relevance? Who claimed it resolved a medical condition? Why would it need to?
"So Frank, who are suffering"
Everyone who has to wade through your ad nauseam reposts of that question (which was answered the first time you asked it), I should imagine.
Frank, who are suffering and how does this proposal help those who are suffering?
"Frank, who are suffering"
Allan, have you had a bang on the head? Is your short term memory leaving you? How many fingers am I holding up (and can you guess which one?)
You see you asked that question several times already and yet it was answered the first time you asked it. Since then you have repeated the question three or four times. You show every sign of continuing to repeat it until your deathbed. Did you forget the answer or didn't you understand the answer?
Perhaps English is not your first language, so let me use smaller words and shorter sentences: Nobody is suffering. Nobody said anybody was suffering. What was said was that people shouldn't have to suffer for your 'dislikes'.
'Suffering', first raised here:
The fact that Allan doesn't like something is hardly an excuse for limiting other people's liberty, nor for making others suffer.
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:30PM | Frank O'Dwyer
Question put as to who is "suffering":
Who is suffering, Frank, and from what illness or malady are they suffering?
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 12:55PM | Allan@Oslo
First non-response here:
They're not (because you're not in charge) and that's how it should stay.
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 01:16PM | Frank O'Dwyer
Who are "they", Frank? It's the "they" as in those who are suffering and strictly within the confines of the subject.
Nobody said anybody was suffering.
Sunday, February 3, 2008 at 05:23PM | Frank O'Dwyer
They're not (because you're not in charge) and that's how it should stay.
Saturday, February 2, 2008 at 01:16PM | Frank O'Dwyer
Hmmm... who are "they" if not "nobody"?
I have to go now, Frank. This has been an interesting one:-)
Allan,
You'll need better reading comprehension than that if you hope to follow along. I'm not going to dumb it down for you.
This is all basic reading and verbal reasoning Allan. Teenagers can manage it. I think you are right to go if you cannot manage it.
Now pay attention. That you have no excuse to make anyone suffer does not imply that anyone is suffering now. Got it yet?
Now that we have dealt with your usual tangents and dead ends, let's recap. If technology becomes available that will allow same sex couples to 'procreate' with each other, then what do you say is the problem exactly? It cannot be that it is not 'natural' because many good things are not natural. It cannot be that the technology doesn't address a 'medical condition', because neither does a dishwasher, car or laptop and those are not 'natural' either. They are still useful (though that is perhaps debatable in the case of your laptop).
And after all, your ilk always like to pretend that inability to procreate with each other is a vital deficiency when you want an excuse to deny same sex couples the right to marry, so you should all be thrilled when it's no longer the case.
Frank, does same-sex procreation not make you feel a little bit off-colour. It does to me.
Allan,
"Frank, does same-sex procreation not make you feel a little bit off-colour. It does to me."
No. Why would it? As long the resulting children are healthy etc why would anyone object?
First you wanted to deny gays the right to marry because they "can't procreate together" and now you also object when they look for ways that they can "procreate together".