Fathers not relevant.

[Drifterwood]

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs reject need for father in IVF

In a fascinating few days in the UK Parliament, our representatives have voted that men are not a consideration in IVF treatment with regard for the need of a father for a child,

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back hybrid embryo research

That producing hybrid human (99%) embryos will be allowed for medical research,

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs back 24-week abortion limit

that the abortion limit will not be reduced from 24 weeks to either 22 or 20 weeks, even though the latter are extremely rare, and that

BBC NEWS | Politics | MPs reject 'saviour sibling' ban

parents will not be banned from having genetically modified children to help with conditions or potential conditions that their elder siblings may suffer.

There is much to debate on all these topics, but our law now seems firmly to have rejected the predominantly religious based moral opposition to what others see as ethical issues.

 

[B_jacknapier]

We should throw out our outdated morality and embrace a new era of MAD SCIENCE

 

[Darpon]

We should throw out our outdated morality and embrace a new era of MAD SCIENCE

You're going to LOVE that big ol' LHC thing they're building, then.

I'm glad that at least ONE part of the world is getting stuff done right. I'm tired of arguments based on religion. Religion can be religion; no one is fighting about what can or cannot be done inside of Churches, Shrines, Temples, Synagogues, or whatever else. Why, then, does religion keep bickering with everyone else on what individuals are allowed to do outside of church, with regards to people's own children, or potential children?

Crap, I think that rant was out of place. All I know is that the UK is getting stuff done right.

 

[Ethyl]

Is a heterosexual relationship is the singular best model for parenting? What about lesbian relationships where a father figure is introduced? Is that not sufficient? I'm just throwing this out there. Must a father be someone who shares that child's DNA?

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Well, in IVF it can happen that the father (dad) is not the biological father. Not always, in fact it isn't that common - but it already does happen. That's not what ruling was about. The ruling was about IVF treatment only being given to women in a stable hetro relationship - regardless of whose DNA was being used.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

And on the point of why 'religious types' keep sticking their noses in and telling people what to do, let me explain a little something to you.

The UK is, for the most part, a democracy. Many of the citizens in the UK elect their chosen representatives for both their political and ethical stances. Part of the debate on all these issues was at an ethical level. A person can get their ethics from a theology, a medical knowledge, a philosophy, a politics, somewhere else or any combination. It is not a question of 'religious types' telling others what to do. It is a debate based on ethics and of course religion is going to come into it for some and not for others.

I have a religious belief that life starts at conception, right? So OF COURSE I am going to argue against abortion at any stage because I believe there to be no difference between aborting a twelve week foetus and strangling a 2 month old baby. Obviously I believe this to be the case for all foetuses - not just the Catholic ones - so if a vote on abortion comes up I am going to vote against. If the majority of people share my view the vote will go that way and if the majority of people oppose my view then the vote will go that way - as is the case in the country where I live. I HAVE to vote on issues like that by my own moral code because anything else will be dishonest. It's not a matter of telling people what to believe - it is a matter of acting upon what I believe in and, because I live in a democracy, the will of the majority is (normally) what becomes law.

But why do you all expect people who believe these things are wrong to stop arguing against them? And voting against them? If you firmly believe in something then you stand by it. Lots of people firmly believed in desegregation on moral and ethical grounds. Should they have stopped trying to impose their ethics on a nation?

 

[Ed69]

So merc does this mean I can fuck and run?Yippy sex with no responsabilty!Let me fuck you and you can do whatever you want with the embryo.I'm just a sperm doner anyway.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

I'm glad of these decisions.

The less hold and influence religion has on society, the better. Yes, Catholicism, I'm looking at you :tongue:

 

[Phil Ayesho]

But why do you all expect people who believe these things are wrong to stop arguing against them? And voting against them?

Because LAW should NOT be based upon a delusional belief in insupportable malarky.


IF there were evidence of a "soul"... then maybe...
If it were even logically possible for a God to inject souls at conception, and still remain moral.... then maybe...
IF the morality portrayed in the Bible was not so purely barbaric.... then maybe....


But as it stands...
I don't care how many folks BELIEVE the world is flat....
Its not a matter of opinion.

ALL ideas are NOT equal... all ideas are NOT valid.
Some have proof. Some are actually true and truth is not determined by popular vote.

When you can pony up proof of your claims, then you can talk about enshrining them in law.



Me... I will go with the only system of thought that has actually extended human life, REALLY cured the lame and the blind and HONESTLY raised the dead.

Science.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Because LAW should NOT be based upon a delusional belief in insupportable malarky.


IF there were evidence of a "soul"... then maybe...
If it were even logically possible for a God to inject souls at conception, and still remain moral.... then maybe...
IF the morality portrayed in the Bible was not so purely barbaric.... then maybe....


But as it stands...
I don't care how many folks BELIEVE the world is flat....
Its not a matter of opinion.

ALL ideas are NOT equal... all ideas are NOT valid.
Some have proof. Some are actually true and truth is not determined by popular vote.

When you can pony up proof of your claims, then you can talk about enshrining them in law.



Me... I will go with the only system of thought that has actually extended human life, REALLY cured the lame and the blind and HONESTLY raised the dead.

Science.

So you expect people to vote against what they belive in because you don't believe in it?

That's way more fucking ridiculous than having an ethical objection to something and equally as prejudiced as you accuse religious people of being.

Are you honestly saying you think it unreasonable that some people are ethically opposed to genetically engineering children so they will be able to donate a kidney to an older sibling?

Edit: And as for comparing it to the flat earth thing - that makes your argument look even more ridiculous. There is no ethical issue to whether the earth is round or not. There IS an ethical issue around genetic engineering. Ethics and religion are NOT the same thing.

There's nothing religious in discussing whether it is OK to selectively discard embryos because they may develope cerebral palsy. We're not talking about curing before conception - we're talking about discarding embryos based on potential for developing ailments. Do you really think you have to believe in God to think twice about that?

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

I think Phil's point was that your ethics are (ill) informed by centuries old fairytales.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I think Phil's point was that your ethics are (ill) informed by centuries old fairytales.

I am perfectly capable of understanding Phil's point and disagreeing with it without your help.

Why don't you answer the question.

There's nothing religious in discussing whether it is OK to selectively discard embryos because they may develop cerebral palsy. We're not talking about curing before conception - we're talking about discarding embryos based on potential for developing ailments. Do you really think you have to believe in God to think twice about that?

 

[Ethyl]

Well, in IVF it can happen that the father (dad) is not the biological father. Not always, in fact it isn't that common - but it already does happen. That's not what ruling was about. The ruling was about IVF treatment only being given to women in a stable hetro relationship - regardless of whose DNA was being used.

I'm well aware of the ruling having read through the articles. This is what I was referring to (from the first article):

"He said the influence of a father figure was as important for daughters as it was for sons.
"It is more often from the father that those young girls learn about empathetic, non-conditional love - that it's possible to have a relationship that doesn't have to involve sex," he said.
Labour ex-minister George Howarth asked if he accepted that there were bad fathers who can "have a bad influence in some circumstances" - to which Mr Duncan Smith said he did.
Lib Dem science spokesman Evan Harris asked: "Do you consider lesbian couples to be broken families? And if you do, what evidence to you have that the children of those families are going off the rails?"'

Hence my questions which I think have merit.

So merc does this mean I can fuck and run?Yippy sex with no responsabilty!Let me fuck you and you can do whatever you want with the embryo.I'm just a sperm doner anyway.

What the fuck are you smoking? Where did you get the idea I was advocating irresponsibility?

 

[No_Strings]

I can't wait for Gattaca to come true.

Screw you, godchildren! :buttkick:


In all seriousness, I think it's all good news.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Hence my questions which I think have merit.

I didn't say they didn't, oh enlightened 'other'. But in the context of the thread and the fact that the need for a father in the picture for IVF treatment to occur was ruled against I suppose I posted what I posted more for clarification - and not specifically at you either.

 

[HazelGod]

Excellent news. Scientific progress should never be shackled by the ignorance of the masses.

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

MB: You believe life begins instantaneously when two gametes combine. Taking that view - then of course you don't agree with stem cell research or 'Designer Babies'. I don't agree with Designer Babies and to be honest I don't think that was the main point of the items in the first post.

The items were:

No need for a father in IVF
24 week abortion limit maintained
"Parents will not be banned from having genetically modified children"

Nowhere in there do I see anything about people have now been allowed to have Designer Babies and disregard embryos with defects such as cerebral palsy or "wrong eye colour". Although it may be implied (I see it more as people are allowed to conceive new children/embryos for their existing children.

Like I said, with your take on things obviously you take offence to scientific progress and would prefer we all just put faith in and be thankful to 'God'. Thankfully yours isn't the majority view :smile:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Fuck you, SLB.

How the fuck do you think selecting a second child that will be physically compatible with the medical needs to the first works?

If you argued your side with any fucking respect or civility whatsoever I wouldn't have a problem. But you take this glib, smug, head up your arse attitude - you are consistantly either too dim to understand an argument or you purposefully put words in other peoples' mouth - I can't actually decide which it is or which is worse.

Congratulations on being the first person in the 14 months I've been here to make my ignore list. Over and out.

 

[Guy-jin]

I realize this is a tangent, but I'll just say I don't agree with the father figure being "irrelevant". One may not need a good father figure to grow up to be healthy, but a good father figure would probably only help.

And on the point of why 'religious types' keep sticking their noses in and telling people what to do, let me explain a little something to you.

The UK is, for the most part, a democracy. Many of the citizens in the UK elect their chosen representatives for both their political and ethical stances. Part of the debate on all these issues was at an ethical level. A person can get their ethics from a theology, a medical knowledge, a philosophy, a politics, somewhere else or any combination. It is not a question of 'religious types' telling others what to do. It is a debate based on ethics and of course religion is going to come into it for some and not for others.

I have a religious belief that life starts at conception, right? So OF COURSE I am going to argue against abortion at any stage because I believe there to be no difference between aborting a twelve week foetus and strangling a 2 month old baby. Obviously I believe this to be the case for all foetuses - not just the Catholic ones - so if a vote on abortion comes up I am going to vote against. If the majority of people share my view the vote will go that way and if the majority of people oppose my view then the vote will go that way - as is the case in the country where I live. I HAVE to vote on issues like that by my own moral code because anything else will be dishonest. It's not a matter of telling people what to believe - it is a matter of acting upon what I believe in and, because I live in a democracy, the will of the majority is (normally) what becomes law.

But why do you all expect people who believe these things are wrong to stop arguing against them? And voting against them? If you firmly believe in something then you stand by it. Lots of people firmly believed in desegregation on moral and ethical grounds. Should they have stopped trying to impose their ethics on a nation?

I'm unclear as to whether you're in favor of or against IVF.

I wonder because the nature of IVF results in the discarding of fertilized embryos.

I personally do not believe it is wrong to vote for the things you believe. However, I do think people have to bend to the will of the masses and abide by the constitutions their countries are founded on.

I also think that people often do not think issues through completely, and that politicians and religious leaders will take advantage of that to press an agenda. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that you haven't thought the issue completely, but that certainly many people haven't.

Case in point: stem cell research. In the United States, creating and even use of new human stem cell lines is banned. However, they would not be taken from late-stage abortions, but most likely from IVF embryos that would never be used and would eventually die by being frozen away for too long or incinerated anyway. Yet, politicians and religious leaders frame the issue as being "pro-stem cell is equivalent to pro-abortion".

 

[B_ScaredLittleBoy]

Something I said. Or typed?