Precisely.
People need to learn the difference between can do something and should do something.

I'm sterile/infertile/call it what you will. I can't have kids. And I have absolutely no intention of wasting valuable medical resources on trying to have kids. I wasn't meant to be a parent, and thus there's no point using medical technology simply to appease my vanity.
( flake has nothing against your right leg, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 14:37, 3 replies)

your post
is a demonstration of that very difference.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 14:39, closed)

So basically what you're saying is...
People who can't see shouldn't wear glasses.
People who can't hear shouldn't wear hearing aids.
People without limbs shouldn't use prosthetic limbs.
etc etc because nature has somehow decided to give them these problems.

Just because someone is unable to have children doesn't mean to say they shouldn't have the chance to have children or care for a child. Most of these people would surely make better parents than a dirty slapper raising 20 kids by her 17th birthday or whatever.
(Shameless, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 15:18, closed)

Very well said!
I couldn't agree more.

What it basically comes down to, is: does a person have an attribute which they were born with - or which otherwise came about due to no fault of their own?

Being partially-sighted is not a choice.
Having cerebray palsy is not a choice.
Being infertile is not a choice.
Being homosexual is not a choice.
Being heterosexual is not a choice.

Basically - if someone is a certain way, and they did not choose to be that way, then there is no reason to deliberately deny them the opportunities which are available to other people - if there is a reasonable way to circumvent their circumstances.
(EuroSong I love horse meat: best of all the animals, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 17:41, closed)

Being hetreosexual is a choice
being made by all those suspiciously homophobic men.
(Burt Burt, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 13:52, closed)

erm...no
No, it really isn't. It's hard-coded into the DNA, because that's how the species procreates.

Now, I don't care which side your bread is buttered, but no amount of rug-munching or rootling round in the vegemite valley of love is going to end up with Mr Sperm bumping into Ms Egg in a dark fallopian tube, having a good time and settling down to some serious cellular mitosis in the Uterus suburbs.

Look, blowjobs are no good from a biological point of view, no matter how much fun they may be - sorry Mr Gay and Mrs Lesbian - you can't breed with your own gender. Only £Thousands of (generally) tax-payers' money pissed away on IVF or surrogacy will allow that and frankly, as a tax payer, I'd rather that money went on things that save lives, not a lifestyle accesory for the trendy same-sex couple down the road.

Sorry, but that's just my view - I don't hate teh gays, I just think that the cash is better spent elsewhere if it's on the NHS. Same goes for IVF as a whole, though.
(Chad, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 15:15, closed)

Err WTF?
Bit of biology here. For a normally fertile rug muncher, you don't need IVF or any of that high tech stuff. Just a willing wanker and a turkey baster. Job done

Oh and teh gays of either biological persuasion can adopt if they can hack being patronised by social workers
(Sir Tainley Barking Ezekiel 23:20, Tue 24 Feb 2009, 0:31, closed)

The difference is
in those examples, you're talking about making life better for someone who has already been born.

Infertility treatment is creating new life with an increased chance if not a certainty of having the same problems the infertile parents have.
( stopmeandslapme Cometh the hour, cometh your mum, Mon 23 Feb 2009, 9:30, closed)

People who can't make a valid, intelligent point
Shouldn't bother trying to
(Pavlov's Frog figures no-one really reads sigs anyway, Sun 22 Feb 2009, 16:43, closed)