Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Ayatollah Buggeri

More B B C Spinning

Recommended Posts

Wailing and gnashing of teeth that IVF treatments using donated sperm have dropped from 9,000 ish in 2004 to 2,000 ish last year. Coverage on PM and The World Tonight focused purely on the payment issue. There was absolutely no mention or discussion whatsoever of two relevant factors:

1. The removal of a sperm donor's right to anonymity in 2005. At the time it happened, there were widespread predictions that it would lead to a big fall in donations, as potential donors would be worried that (i) the child(ren) might attempt to contact him in adult life when he didn't want that, and/or (ii) that the donor might be held responsible for maintenance payments or forced to play a role in bringing up the child at a later date, e.g. if the 'parents' divorced.

2. Should the NHS be funding IVF at all, given the overpopulation crisis and the impending squeeze on public finances? There are valid arguments on both sides, but as usual the BBC would prefer that any debate which carries a valid argument that doesn't conform to its left-wing mindset simply didn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wailing and gnashing of teeth that IVF treatments using donated sperm have dropped from 9,000 ish in 2004 to 2,000 ish last year. Coverage on PM and The World Tonight focused purely on the payment issue. There was absolutely no mention or discussion whatsoever of two relevant factors:

1. The removal of a sperm donor's right to anonymity in 2005. At the time it happened, there were widespread predictions that it would lead to a big fall in donations, as potential donors would be worried that (i) the child(ren) might attempt to contact him in adult life when he didn't want that, and/or (ii) that the donor might be held responsible for maintenance payments or forced to play a role in bringing up the child at a later date, e.g. if the 'parents' divorced.

2. Should the NHS be funding IVF at all, given the overpopulation crisis and the impending squeeze on public finances? There are valid arguments on both sides, but as usual the BBC would prefer that any debate which carries a valid argument that doesn't conform to its left-wing mindset simply didn't exist.

Obvious to anyone except a labour drone that this would be the outcome.

Totally agree the NHS should be for treating illness (perhaps re-naming it would aid this) and not for designer babies. There is no "human right" to procreate. Of you are infertile or gay then I am sorry but that's they way it is.

Finally there are millions of spunk covered tissues created every day by men of all ages in the UK. I simply don't think they've thought of collecting the sperm from them :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no "human right" to procreate.

Hmmm, interesting philosophical point here. Maybe procreation should be the first and fundamental human right as some would say that procreation is the only point of living?

Thinking about it a bit more, shouldn't we be spending money ensuring a healthy species in the future, rather than only taking care of sick people now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an age where medical science is continually trying to subvert natural selection, doctors and researchers are encouraged to waste millions pursuing sacred cows such as giving infertile women children: whilst more deserving medical causes are neglected.

Some few years back a cousin gave birth to a child suffering with Downe's Syndrome. Being as she was she wanted to know why!

All of which started a family genetic medical investigation from a leading researcher at Guys Hospital in London.

All close relatives were asked to partcipate: since I was then working in the City, once lunchtime I toddled off to Guys to have blood samples taken.

The very dedicated Prof leading this valuable research project had a tiny cluttered office: and zero assistance.

Yet meanwhile, research into such as IVF was headlined as wonderful!

Surely, preventing babes being born suffering from Downes Syndrome ought to be more critically important than producing yet more children in an over-populated World and pandering to the whims of homosexuals and lesbians who demand to experience parenthood, often via surrogacy for hard rotten cash?

What a spavined society this has degenerated into!

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It automatically posted twice!

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wailing and gnashing of teeth that IVF treatments using donated sperm have dropped from 9,000 ish in 2004 to 2,000 ish last year. Coverage on PM and The World Tonight focused purely on the payment issue. There was absolutely no mention or discussion whatsoever of two relevant factors:

1. The removal of a sperm donor's right to anonymity in 2005. At the time it happened, there were widespread predictions that it would lead to a big fall in donations, as potential donors would be worried that (i) the child(ren) might attempt to contact him in adult life when he didn't want that, and/or (ii) that the donor might be held responsible for maintenance payments or forced to play a role in bringing up the child at a later date, e.g. if the 'parents' divorced.

2. Should the NHS be funding IVF at all, given the overpopulation crisis and the impending squeeze on public finances? There are valid arguments on both sides, but as usual the BBC would prefer that any debate which carries a valid argument that doesn't conform to its left-wing mindset simply didn't exist.

Yes I remember that issue at the time. The BBC were lining up people back then to tell us that it would not put people off donating.

I remembering think how that was utterly implausible.

Its strange that people on the left seem to assume that everything is static. If you change something it effects nothing else, that no actions have consequences. It goes far beyond this issue of course. Its pervasive in all left wing thinking. I can only assume that that the part of the mental condition of leftism that your unable to properly perceive cause and effect. I have believed for many years that being left wing is a form of mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I remember that issue at the time. The BBC were lining up people back then to tell us that it would not put people off donating.

I remembering think how that was utterly implausible.

Its strange that people on the left seem to assume that everything is static. If you change something it effects nothing else, that no actions have consequences. It goes far beyond this issue of course. Its pervasive in all left wing thinking. I can only assume that that the part of the mental condition of leftism that your unable to properly perceive cause and effect. I have believed for many years that being left wing is a form of mental illness.

I have noticed this more and more in the last four years: a complete lack of ability to comprehend there could be negative future ramifications of a policy decision, particularly when said ramification would be produced by individuals' reactions on the ground.

They really do expect people to move like blocks exactly to where they think they should go. It is very odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have noticed this more and more in the last four years: a complete lack of ability to comprehend there could be negative future ramifications of a policy decision, particularly when said ramification would be produced by individuals' reactions on the ground.

They really do expect people to move like blocks exactly to where they think they should go. It is very odd.

It's like something out of Star Trek.

We are the Borg, resistance is futile.

I really don't think we have had a more inept, more arrogant government. They are completely unable to have debate or argument.

I remember this episode well, it was obvious the change would lead to less participation, bit no, the do-gooders and the know-betters would have their way. A waste of sperm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sperm donors always used to get paid. I knew lots of people at uni (long time back) who did it on a regular basis. I'm absolutely sure they wouldn't have done it for free or if they thought there was any chance of their anonymity being removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess so.

Id give blood if they paid me. I know it sounds wrong, but they if can pay drugs companies billions to keep people alive, the least they can do is pay me £20 or so for a pint of blood, i could actually do with the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.