Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 14, 2023, 10:29:14 AM
-
I don't think that it should be available on the NHS at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66927609
-
I don't think that it should be available on the NHS at all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66927609
Sorry, to be clear, you don't think it should be available to gay couples on the NHS, or to anyone?
For me, I don't see that it is discrimination - as a straight couple, looking to IVF for reasons not related to fertility, my wife and I were not eligible for free treatment on the NHS, because it wasn't a treatment for a condition that we had. Similarly, whilst there are reasons that gay couples can't conceive, it's not medical, they aren't seeking treatment for a condition.
I can see the frustration, but the state doesn't owe anyone children.
O.
-
Sorry, to be clear, you don't think it should be available to gay couples on the NHS, or to anyone?
For me, I don't see that it is discrimination - as a straight couple, looking to IVF for reasons not related to fertility, my wife and I were not eligible for free treatment on the NHS, because it wasn't a treatment for a condition that we had. Similarly, whilst there are reasons that gay couples can't conceive, it's not medical, they aren't seeking treatment for a condition.
I can see the frustration, but the state doesn't owe anyone children.
O.
To anyone. As you say the state doesn't owe anyone children.
-
It is incredibly expensive and I would argue money that could be put to better use by the NHS.
Other options are available for gay people and indeed everyone - notably adoption.
This not only fulfils the perceived need for a child but also reduces the burden on the state and therefore on taxpayers. 3,000 children are currently awaiting adoption and a lot more are in care, around 80,000.