pwalshj wrote:Plan?!? Wait. Some of you PLAN IT?

Yeah, it's called pulling out when you feel your pickle start to tickle.

Mark Hansen wrote:I guess I lost all punk credibility back in the day when I took my then 6 year old son to see The Dicks, D.O.A., Butthole Surfers, Cro-Mags, Black Flag, virtually all the Chicago punk bands from that era, etc. etc.

Oh, the shame.

For the record, my now 27 year old son has turned out just fine, he's smart as hell and doing well. I'm very proud of him.

Poor fucker must be stone deaf, though.

skatingbasser wrote:Already have one.

A girlfriend and two cats.

Me too, but a girlfriend and two dogs.

Rick Reuben wrote: Answer the question, Honey: how much should a socialized health care system spend on fertility problems? Unlimited? I thought that health care was for people who are already living. Now taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill for expensive fertility treatments ( that may still fail in the end )? Why not spend the NHS budget on adopted kids? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Like anything else it's about balancing resources. How much should we, the tax payer, spend on fixing fat folks' stomachs or smokers' lungs or alchoholics' livers?

What about cancer treatments? Using Mandroid's and Marsupialized's arguements, cancer is naturally occuring, it's nature so why not have cancer sufferers just live with the hand they are dealt?

Also, there maybe a cultural difference between us in our perception of the care of orphan children. In the UK we don't have young orphan kids sleeping rough. There are very well established state and charity organisations taking care of them.

I assume this is not the case in the US if orphans are treated in the way that Marsupialized describes and left to the mercy of a welfareless state?.

I can understand Marsupialized's feeling of social impotence too, but we've got to be pragmatic and can't expect just one group to shoulder the burden of society's orphan situation.


It's been interesting to hear the attitudes of PRFers on families, but quite shocking to read the views regarding fertility treatment.

Rick Reuben wrote: Answer the question, Honey: how much should a socialized health care system spend on fertility problems? Unlimited? I thought that health care was for people who are already living. Now taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill for expensive fertility treatments ( that may still fail in the end )? Why not spend the NHS budget on adopted kids? A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

In 2000, the British government pledged an additional £66.5million annually to adoption services, and a further £41 million annually to social services geared towards parentless children. The total annual spend on social services for parentless children is now at around £375 million.

In comparision, the NHS offers one free fertility cycle treatment to couples seeking IVF. The costs of one cycle rarely reach £3,000, and about 46,000 couples seek IVF treatment each year. That means total costs spent on patients amount to around £140,000 annually. Of course, money has to be spent to establish and maintain facilities for IVF treatment, but this is thought to peak at about £500,000 a year per local authority (and usually falls well short of this target).

In short, the amount of money being poured by the British government in to just adoption services alone, let alone wider social services for parentless children, is well in excess of that spent on infertility treatments.

Is this division of spending really unjust?

Cancer treatments, cleft palate surgury, heart bypasses-- none of those contribute to the birth of yet another unnecessary human being. Those procedures improve the lives of those already existing. I am not against improving the daily existences of the already living or minimizing their suffering.

This is also why I would prefer that people adopt rather than deciding that their genetics are so goshdarn important that they must be passed on, even when biology clearly tells them "no." Take care of the living first, please.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:
This is also why I would prefer that people adopt rather than deciding that their genetics are so goshdarn important that they must be passed on, even when biology clearly tells them "no."

What about the disabled or those with genetic degenerative diseases? Should they be allowed to reproduce?

Mandroid2.0 wrote:Cancer treatments, cleft palate surgury, heart bypasses-- none of those contribute to the birth of yet another unnecessary human being. Those procedures improve the lives of those already existing. I am not against improving the daily existences of the already living or minimizing their suffering.

This is also why I would prefer that people adopt rather than deciding that their genetics are so goshdarn important that they must be passed on, even when biology clearly tells them "no." Take care of the living first, please.

What about the psychological well being of those unable to start a family without medical help.

It's got to be said Mandroid, that your stance is a little hypocritical when you prescribe that everyone else should adopt to help out the orphans but you would not. I mean you don't have to adopt a baby, you could get a teenager and still be helping out.

simmo wrote:

Mandroid2.0 wrote:
This is also why I would prefer that people adopt rather than deciding that their genetics are so goshdarn important that they must be passed on, even when biology clearly tells them "no."

What about the disabled or those with genetic degenerative diseases? Should they be allowed to reproduce?

Sure. It's a shitty thing to do if you actually know that you risk subjecting your progeny to the same condition, but I've never said that anyone should be allowed or disallowed to do anything in particular. It's a personal choice. I just wish that people would consider the ramifications of their actions.

My cousins on one side of my family have bred and produced offspring who are at great risk for a number of genetic diseases. Fatal, painful, bad diseases. I personally disapprove but it's not my decision. If these things were my decision, the entirety of the human race would be sterilized and we'd be nothing more than bones and artifacts in 100 years' time. Unfortunately for me, I can only sit back and opine.

Josef K wrote:What about the psychological well being of those unable to start a family without medical help.

It's got to be said Mandroid, that your stance is a little hypocritical when you prescribe that everyone else should adopt to help out the orphans but you would not. I mean you don't have to adopt a baby, you could get a teenager and still be helping out.

When did I say that everyone should adopt? I said that I'd prefer that they did. I said that they should if they express religious opinions that restrict abortions and favour adoptions, but that's a different matter that apparently doesn't exist outside the borders of the U.S.

Also, I'm not fit to be a mother. I know that, my friends know that, and even my own mother knows that. I would not be helping out anyone by adopting a child. Seriously. That kid would be better off in an orphanage or in foster care.