Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

WomanNotIncluded

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hmm well if i was infertile i certainly wouldnt buy something so important of the net :no: id rather someone i knew if it had come to that
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Further commodification of babies? Pragmatically it is probably useful but this kind of thing feels intuitively wrong.............:confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    .
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    At the risk of saying something potentially rather inflammable I have to say i feel kind of against this type of thing, both the 'sale' of eggs & sperm. Somehow for me it cheapens the sanctity of life to put any price on it.

    The way in which, in effect, babies are treated as fashionable commodities to me seems fundamentally wrong. Surely we humans are worth more than that?

    Mind you, must admit, that I feel kind of against IVF as a whole for the reason that the 'disposal' of unwanted embryos to me seems entirely morally wrong.

    Whilst my :heart: goes out to couples struggling with fertility problems I can't help struggling to understand the desire to have children that are as near to biologically 'yours' as possible... what is so bad about adoption? After all, its not biology that makes you a parent, it's committing yourself to raising another human being & loving it unconditionally that, in my view, makes you a parent. For instance if my Father had taken no part in raising me, I wouldn't feel that he deserved the title 'Father', even if his sperm had led to me being born.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    At the risk of saying something potentially rather inflammable I have to say i feel kind of against this type of thing, both the 'sale' of eggs & sperm. Somehow for me it cheapens the sanctity of life to put any price on it.

    Sperms and ova are not alive in any real sense, it's not cheapening the sanctity of life by donating them or even for paying for them.

    The way in which, in effect, babies are treated as fashionable commodities to me seems fundamentally wrong. Surely we humans are worth more than that?

    That isn't really the issue here- couples who ahve to resort to IVF don't want children as the ultimate fashion accessory, they want children because it is a basic fundamental urge. And no matter the benefits of adoption, they are not *your* children. It's a key difference.

    Mind you, must admit, that I feel kind of against IVF as a whole for the reason that the 'disposal' of unwanted embryos to me seems entirely morally wrong.

    Abortion is another topic.

    After all, its not biology that makes you a parent, it's committing yourself to raising another human being & loving it unconditionally that, in my view, makes you a parent.

    Adopted children are not *your* children, they are somebody else's children that you are in charge of. Much as adoptive parents love them, a lot say it isn't the same thing; much as adoptees love their "parents", a lot say it isn't the same thing. The biology creates a bond.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm unsure where I stand on this.

    I don't think sperms or ova should be sold, but unfortunately the incentive of money is the only way to get most people to donate. The rules shouldn't stand for one and not the other, but I'm not entirely sure that selling is desirable. It doesn't cheapen human life, as has been suggested, but it is a bit distasteful- it'd be like the blood service paying for blood.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    Sperms and ova are not alive in any real sense, it's not cheapening the sanctity of life by donating them or even for paying for them.

    No they are not alive kermit by themselves ... but they are the 2 creative parts to something that is alive.
    Abortion is another topic.

    Yes arguably is IS another topic ... yet you cannot deny that the disposal of surplus embryos is a part of the IVF process can you? So though I accept that it is another large issue itself, it is also inseparable from the context of IVF treatment
    Adopted children are not *your* children, they are somebody else's children that you are in charge of. Much as adoptive parents love them, a lot say it isn't the same thing; much as adoptees love their "parents", a lot say it isn't the same thing. The biology creates a bond.

    Yes the biology does create a bond ... but i can't see how it is the only way to create a bond; and who is to say that a child raised by their biological parents doesn't have different but equally important issues regarding his/her parents ... eg. "you only love me because you HAVE to"

    And what of my example of the absent 'Father'?
    For instance if my Father had taken no part in raising me, I wouldn't feel that he deserved the title 'Father', even if his sperm had led to me being born.

    it'd be like the blood service paying for blood.

    I understand from the website that the term 'expenses' is used as regards the payment ... do you think that the blood service would have to do this if they didn't have those little teams that go into your local area

    Also this raises an interesting point, I mean someone mentioned having an urge for children. is there a hierarchy of needs?

    I mean we need
    • blood
    • food
    • water
    • shelter

    as fundamentals but what follows that?

    Could it be...
    • life partner
    • children
    • family/friends
    • car
    • tv
    • computer

    ??????
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    I can't help struggling to understand the desire to have children that are as near to biologically 'yours' as possible... what is so bad about adoption? After all, its not biology that makes you a parent, it's committing yourself to raising another human being & loving it unconditionally that, in my view, makes you a parent.

    True, but biological drives are hard to ignore for some people. I dunno how old you are, but people get into their 30's, that instinct to reproduce kicks in hard for some people, especially women.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    Also this raises an interesting point, I mean someone mentioned having an urge for children. is there a hierarchy of needs?

    I mean we need

    • blood
    • food
    • water
    • shelter

    as fundamentals but what follows that?

    Could it be...
    • life partner
    • children
    • family/friends
    • car
    • tv
    • computer

    ??????

    Abraham Maslow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    its because in the future we'll all be paying £20000/yr fees to study at uni so whilst women sell yhteir bodies to pay their way, men sell their sperm to pay their way..... its the only paying easy job we can do :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What ever happened to Darwinism and theories of evolution?
    Maybe there is a reason why infertile couples can't have babies, but noone has stopped to think of that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    What ever happened to Darwinism and theories of evolution?
    Maybe there is a reason why infertile couples can't have babies, but noone has stopped to think of that.

    Maybe there is a reason why three-year-old kids get leukeamia, does that mean that we should let them die?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    No they are not alive kermit by themselves ... but they are the 2 creative parts to something that is alive.

    So is masturbation "cheapening the anctity of life"?

    Yes arguably is IS another topic ... yet you cannot deny that the disposal of surplus embryos is a part of the IVF process can you? So though I accept that it is another large issue itself, it is also inseparable from the context of IVF treatment.

    Fair enough, though abortion topics normally discuss the issue of when life starts. I don't think embryos *are* alive, because they cannot survive by themselves- harsh as it sounds, they are little more than a bubdle of cells, regardless of what films like "The Silent Scream" try and indicate.

    Yes the biology does create a bond ... but i can't see how it is the only way to create a bond; and who is to say that a child raised by their biological parents doesn't have different but equally important issues regarding his/her parents ... eg. "you only love me because you HAVE to"

    And what of my example of the absent 'Father'?

    The biological bond is the strongest, especiallay for a lot of women, because the child is *theirs* and not just a child. It doesn't mean that people wouldn't form bonds with adoptive children, but it's not the same thing.

    The absent father, and the child's issues, are irrelevancies to the argument.

    I mean someone mentioned having an urge for children. is there a hierarchy of needs?

    I mean we need
    • blood
    • food
    • water
    • shelter

    as fundamentals but what follows that?

    Could it be...
    • life partner
    • children
    • family/friends
    • car
    • tv
    • computer

    ??????

    The link Blagsta put up explains a lot, but the biological clock is not just a figure of speech- a lot of women feel that way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Abraham Maslow
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

    Good link Blagsta!


    Masturbation doesn't cheapen the sanctity of life I don't think (unless people pay you to masturbate? :wink:)

    But perhaps it cheapens the intimacy of making love, it objectifies a sexual partner (unless you can masturbate without picturing sexy things)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    it objectifies a sexual partner

    What does this actually mena, it is a phrase that is used a lot but I really can't see that it has much substantive meaning. My girlfriend is an object, she has material form, this is a fact.......
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    But perhaps it cheapens the intimacy of making love, it objectifies a sexual partner (unless you can masturbate without picturing sexy things)

    Nonsense. Most people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And some people like being objectified in sex some of the time...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Adopted children are not *your* children, they are somebody else's children that you are in charge of. Much as adoptive parents love them, a lot say it isn't the same thing; much as adoptees love their "parents", a lot say it isn't the same thing. The biology creates a bond.

    My grandfather found out that the people who he thought where his parents, weren't... but he never felt any less close to them. It was a strong family despite the fact he was adopted.

    Personally I feel there are already to many unwanted children in this world to justify going to extreme lengths just to make sure that they have the same genes as the parents.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Jo_is_an_Angel
    Personally I feel there are already to many unwanted children in this world to justify going to extreme lengths just to make sure that they have the same genes as the parents.

    There are waiting lists to adopt babies and small infants, so it isn't going to an "extreme length" really. And I've said this already- adopted children are no less loved, but there is apparently something about the biological link, especially between mother and child.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Whowhere
    What ever happened to Darwinism and theories of evolution?
    Maybe there is a reason why infertile couples can't have babies, but noone has stopped to think of that.

    I'd kinda agree with you there. Think about the rise in asthma. When nobody had asthma and alergies etc people where dying because of the unhygienic conditions they lived in. Today, having made our environment hygienic, children are dying of asthma.... just a thought.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I didn't think people actually died of asthma in all but very rare cases? In which case asthma is probably to some extent a p[rice worth paying to eliminate far more deadly diseases. Though of course there is an argument that our home environments are too clean and that kids could be a bit muckier without any risak of serious disease........
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Blagsta
    Nonsense. Most people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. And some people like being objectified in sex some of the time...
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    What does this actually mean, it is a phrase that is used a lot but I really can't see that it has much substantive meaning. My girlfriend is an object, she has material form, this is a fact......

    I can see where you are coming from on this one. Perhaps it comes from society's way of separating sex from emotion. Now before you all jump on me for saying that, allow me to explain what i mean by it...

    I'm sure that many will argue that there are almost 2 kinds of sex; there is the 'pure physical satisfaction' without much emotional connection and there is the 'expressing love for my partner' kind. Now IMO there is two much of the 1st category of sex in society. Sex is so much more than penetration! It's all the emotions, the 'fuzzy feelings' the connection/bond between two people. Where we live in a society where we look on many things with a view to being holistc (looking after the whole self) with holistic therapies, medicines, foods, education, child-rearing ... why is it that it seems we reduce sex to simply the 1-sided 'in-out'???

    As a result of societal treatment of sex right now it could be argued that indeed even during sexual intercourse people are objectified, how can they not be when you consider our treatment of sex as essentially just a physical act. (what the 'experts' love to term 'casual sex').

    In the same vein fantasizing about someone (or something!) during the act of masturbation isn't taking into account and emotion in sexual behaviour, it is purely a physical thing, hence by fantasizing of something it is merely an object to give you pleasure. Not a person with thoughts, feelings & emotional response
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But if thats what 2 people want to do, then its their business and no one elses.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You're entitled to that opinion.

    But I would say that in my view that it also is a matter of concern for God.

    But not for me to judge.... I'm leaving that to the heavenly judge!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Toadborg
    I didn't think people actually died of asthma in all but very rare cases?

    quite a lot of people, especially children and old people, who might be worse at controlling their medication, die of asthma attacks. britain is the worst place in the world for it.

    i think the figure is something like 200,000 deaths a year, although presumably that's worldwide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    You're entitled to that opinion.

    But I would say that in my view that it also is a matter of concern for God.

    But not for me to judge.... I'm leaving that to the heavenly judge!


    God is dead.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You wish.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I killed him.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No you didn't so stop being silly and debate the issues, remember everyone has the right to hold their own opinions without being taunted for them. Challenged, yes, taunted, no.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In my defence, it was 3:15 am and I was rather worse for wear.

    Apologies. :o
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Zizzle
    I'm sure that many will argue that there are almost 2 kinds of sex; there is the 'pure physical satisfaction' without much emotional connection and there is the 'expressing love for my partner' kind. Now IMO there is two much of the 1st category of sex in society. Sex is so much more than penetration! It's all the emotions, the 'fuzzy feelings' the connection/bond between two people. Where we live in a society where we look on many things with a view to being holistc (looking after the whole self) with holistic therapies, medicines, foods, education, child-rearing ... why is it that it seems we reduce sex to simply the 1-sided 'in-out'???

    As a result of societal treatment of sex right now it could be argued that indeed even during sexual intercourse people are objectified, how can they not be when you consider our treatment of sex as essentially just a physical act. (what the 'experts' love to term 'casual sex').

    In the same vein fantasizing about someone (or something!) during the act of masturbation isn't taking into account and emotion in sexual behaviour, it is purely a physical thing, hence by fantasizing of something it is merely an object to give you pleasure. Not a person with thoughts, feelings & emotional response

    There is a difference between sex and "making love", which you don't quite seem to be able to grasp.

    Sex is a physical act, ruled by physical feelings. I fancy my girlfriend as a physical entity, so I want to have sex with her, so I do have sex with her, because I fancy her body as is does not mean that I am objectifying her, or denouncing her to the point of being mere body parts. "Casual sex" does this- it boils down to the physical act and physical feelings, and acting on those feelings- if I have a one-night stand I don't reduce the girl to being a body to have sex with, but her body would be the reason why I was having sex with her.

    I fail to see what the problem with this is. If I consent to "casual" sex, and my partner consents to it, then what is the problem?

    "Holistic" sex is undoubtedly more satisfying, because emotion is a key part of enjoying sex to it's fullness, but that does not mean having sex with someone purely because you are attracted to their body is wrong, or is cheapening human consciousness. It is not objectifying a person.

    Your point about masturbation is even more ludicrous, for the same reason.

    What is the religious obsession with what people do in their bedrooms? If two people consent to share each other, for whatever reason, then I don't see why a God would actually care. So stop being so hung up about sex.
Sign In or Register to comment.