A bit of an email debate

I put Will's response at the top, followed by Dave since he was responding to Will, rather than me writing two emails and being spammy :) I decided not to re write my former response again to Dana's response, since essentially she was passing off a one-line opinion and really, I don't want to argue about a one-line viwepoint with anyone right now :) We don't agree, but that's fine because neither of us is holding a flaming ladder!

> I think the issue is simply, you don't *have* to have the traditional
> nuclear male unit / female unit / child unit(s) family to raise a happy,
> stable kid.

You don't *have* to do a lot of things but there are testable, provable methods of doing things which work better MOST of the time. To ignore these things is just down to what WE want at the end of the day and is not in the best interests of the child, is it? We have drifted from the original point which was should lesbian/gay/single people get FREE IVF treatment on the NHS?

I say no because of all the reasons stated; the unfairness because of the long wait medially-struggling couples have to go through, the liklihood that any of the above could use a free avenue, the self funding issue for 'social convictions' and of course the fact that male/female couplings are still to the very best of my understanding, the best way to raise children, and should therefore have the backing of the NHS for purely factual, scientific reasons if nothing else.

This was not intended to be about 'can gay/lesbian/singles' be good parents or even parents on equal terms with male/female married or co-habitors? But interestingly, that is what it's immediately turned into, which is actually an educated things since it is an underlying issue within the original issue. But on that, the moral and faith-based arguments ARE going to come out to join the secular arguments.

> The things you're fretting about seem mostly to be public opinion . . .
> yeah that's gonna matter to some kids, but others (I think George is a
> fair example) wouldn't give a hoot. After all, she's a girl and she's
> given herself a boy's name - she doesn't care, why should anybody else?

Do you have ANY IDEA the amount of bullying that I went through because of the way I looked, who I hung out with, my name, the fact I liked football and not netball (the most - I loved most sports), my choices? Saying idiots don't matter is a nice mantra from a position where you no longer have to go into school and BE that kid who everyone bullies, but when you are there, don't say it doesn't matter because it does. We do need to keep this in perspective and respect the child's right to a healthy life where possible. Parents should be thinking first of the child and not of their own selfish urges, anyway. That's my opinion but yes, it would be nice if in secondary issues such as name-giving and what we dress like, there could be more charity. But the other side of the same coin is let's not become rosey spectacled in doing so and pretend problems that really do exist aren't there.

George's answer to 'George is a boy's name!' was always 'No it's not. George is MY name'.

> The important thing is that the child is loved, cared for and educated.> As long as that happens it'll grow up fine, whoever its family is.

Nope. You can give all those things and still raise a hellraiser, there's more to it than just that - I was raised lovingly on paper but had several shrinks and was told I was a pyromaniac, psychotic, a tad megalomanic and something else I forget now. What happens to you within your peer group also massively effects how you are raised. There is a good book about this I have somewhere downstairs.

Also, the child would appear to be more likely to be stablly raised in a married household with a female and a male present, and as I said, this is actually about giving NHS money, tax payers money, to people who want to have IVF but don't want to have sex as a first option. I don't care if they feel they can't or they just won't, the fact is why should I fund their choice? They can fund it and if I meet that child or they walk into my office, I'll treat them equally as a human being and offer them love and choices. But many won't, because they don't have my moral convictions concerning loving one another. We need to see the entire pictue I think and all of the issues, not just get political.

I believe NHS funding should be there to offer life threatening conditions free treament for all, so that poverty doesn't mean as it does in Romania, you die. Cancer, HIV, all of that lot and many other lesser conditions too. I do not believe we should be giving this vital funding away to people who feel they have the right to have a baby but they don't want to have sex to get one. I am sorry but that's how I feel. That money is for /sicknesses/, not choice-based things like baby shopping.

>the people on the receiving end care what the idiots of the world think - I sure did at school as a kid - hindsight is easy, and completly irrelevent. Children will care - what you are putting forward is what you think and reckon and what would matter to you - what I was attempting to put forward is whats going to matter to a kid in a situation where logic wont be worth crap all. It WILL bother children who are growing and tahts that.

I do agree with Dave here, which is rare since we often are on opposite sides of most debates :)

>I also do not doubt a lesbian couples ability to love a child - I do however doubt their ability to cover all bases in the raising of a child, ESPECIALLY a son.

Agreed, though here we're slipping into another topic, which would be 'Can gay/lesbian/single households raise children equally well as male/female households?'

>I purposfully used the word prefable in the last email - so im saying i dont think lesbian/single/gay people are in capable. Its important you realise I dont think they are incapable. But im not going to go against all sense and say that its a better way to raise a child, it quite BLATANTLY isnt for the reasons I have illustrated.

What upsets me is that we are in fact forcing our morality therefore on to the NHS and onto these children, by stating that we are free to have children no matter who or what we are and that is our position. I am saying fine - if you feel that strongly about raising a child, adopt for goodness' sake OR have one naturally. That's what the rest of us tend to do. Why should any group get SPECIAL rights?

I will always support //any// family unit if they need support ... once they exist. Dana for example (and I hope she won't mind it being said here) is currently a single Mum and she needs support and all that kind of stuff, because it's right to help those who need help. Charity should be something we ALL strive to support and take part in, we should all be charitable. But helping actively to CREATE these situations - say giving someone in Dana's situation free IVF to have another child now, I believe would actually be immoral and forcing a certain brand of liberal morality onto the NHS and onto the soon to be born child.

On the other hand, if Dana finds herself a nice man and decides to have a family again in the future, there's nothing wrong with that AT ALL, if both parents decide to start a family. The same goes for a single man who has a child right now. I think that needs to be said to clarify exactly what's being discussed here - it's not some sort of 'leave the wierdos to die!' policy, it's about how we spend our NHS funding and who we give it to and why.

“I cannot teach anyone anything, I can only make them think.”--- Socrates