'Childbirth' for same sex couples

[Sir David Gray]

Should same sex couples be eligible to receive egg or sperm donations from a third party, so they can have a child?

[ChooseLife]

Think about the children.:bitchy:

[steakbake]

Aye, everyone knows that heterosexual parenting is uniquely successful at bringing up kids in a stable environment... :cool2:

[Jay]

Think about the children.:bitchy:

should people who have children in a hetrosexual relationship who then move on to a same sex relationship not be allowed to keep their children? Are the children better off in care or in a loving home where the adults are both the same sex?


Back to the OP question - I think if they can pass the same restrictions as a hetrosexual couple then why not?

Yes the kids would have a barrier to break through in life but that can be said of many kids - disabilities, parents with substance abuse problems, skin colour is unfortunately still up there, religious beliefs etc.

[mickeythehibbee]

Aye, everyone knows that heterosexual parenting is uniquely successful at bringing up kids in a stable environment... :cool2:


Agreed with this. I know someone who has been raised by a same sex couple and they are one of the friendliest, most well rounded people i know, so i'm in full favour of these rights being given. :agree:

However it needs to be made sure that the biological Father (or mother) is just a donator and has no rights. Otherwise there comes trouble with things like the claims made to the CSA and such ilk, however that's more a problem with the donation process than gay parents exactly! :agree:

[Hainan Hibs]

I would like to say yes but I would fear for bullying of the children at schools.

[steakbake]

I would like to say yes but I would fear for bullying of the children at schools.

For that reason alone, I think it is worth denying kids a chance for a happy family background. :rolleyes:

Sorry.... :duck::devil:

[Killiehibbie]

Man meets woman have children if 2 men choose to live as a couple they don't. A child needs a real mother not a man pretending.

[Jay]

Man meets woman have children if 2 men choose to live as a couple they don't. A child needs a real mother not a man pretending.

What about single dads bringing up their kids? :confused: Plenty kids around whose mother is not there at all for one reason or another.

[Killiehibbie]

What about single dads bringing up their kids? :confused: Plenty kids around whose mother is not there at all for one reason or another.
Not an ideal situation and I don't know how i would get on bad enough when my wife goes away for a weekend.

[mickeythehibbee]

Man meets woman have children if 2 men choose to live as a couple they don't. A child needs a real mother not a man pretending.


Sorry, but i disagree.

If a man and a woman can have a one night stand, leave a single mum all alone to raise an unwanted child in a possible unloving environment, i see no reason why a couple who are more than capable of raising a child in a loving home and providing all caring and protection the child could desire, should be denied due to their gender.

In some cases the only link between a mother and the Father of a child is the one night of conception. Say a gay man were to get drunk and have a one night stand with a woman and a child results, should the Mother if in a relationship automatically be given care of the child? Even if in an abusive the relationship and the gay father a stable one? :bitchy:

[Killiehibbie]

Sorry, but i disagree.

If a man and a woman can have a one night stand, leave a single mum all alone to raise an unwanted child in a possible unloving environment, i see no reason why a couple who are more than capable of raising a child in a loving home and providing all caring and protection the child could desire, should be denied due to their gender.

In some cases the only link between a mother and the Father of a child is the one night of conception. Say a gay man were to get drunk and have a one night stand with a woman and a child results, should the Mother if in a relationship automatically be given care of the child? Even if in an abusive the relationship and the gay father a stable one? :bitchy:

Mothers in general are maternal men are not their input into a childs upbringing is different.
The 'gay' man in your analogy doesn't know if he's coming or going so hardly a stable person to bring up a child.

[mickeythehibbee]

Mothers in general are maternal men are not their input into a childs upbringing is different.
The 'gay' man in your analogy doesn't know if he's coming or going so hardly a stable person to bring up a child.


But you still haven't really answered the question bar making sweeping generalisations about women. You say Mothers are generally more maternal than men but i could cite many situations where women would make terrible mothers just as men can make terrible fathers. Are you saying that someone such as Karen Mathews should be allowed to keep her child over the father just because she is more likely to be maternal. :confused:

Personally i think it should just be looked at on a case to case basis and decided whether the child would be in a secure and caring household rather than differentiate between minor things such as the parents sexuality.

As for the gay man in the example, he wouldn't be the first to do something when drunk and then massively regret it later! :wink:

[Jay]

Not an ideal situation and I don't know how i would get on bad enough when my wife goes away for a weekend.

But should you then lose your kids if something did happen? Do you think your kids would be better given to a women instead?

I suspect you would do a grand job and the kids would be perfectly looked after. Many kids grow up without someone maternal around them. Paternal can be just as good as maternal. I wouldn't think a male gay couple would have one maternal partner thats a bit stereotypical.

[Killiehibbie]

But you still haven't really answered the question bar making sweeping generalisations about women. You say Mothers are generally more maternal than men but i could cite many situations where women would make terrible mothers just as men can make terrible fathers. Are you saying that someone such as Karen Mathews should be allowed to keep her child over the father just because she is more likely to be maternal. :confused:

Personally i think it should just be looked at on a case to case basis and decided whether the child would be in a secure and caring household rather than differentiate between minor things such as the parents sexuality.

As for the gay man in the example, he wouldn't be the first to do something when drunk and then massively regret it later! :wink:

There are always going to be women who should not be left in charge of a paint brush never mind a child but in the majority of cases children are better off with their mother and father bringing them up.

[Killiehibbie]

But should you then lose your kids if something did happen? Do you think your kids would be better given to a women instead?

I suspect you would do a grand job and the kids would be perfectly looked after. Many kids grow up without someone maternal around them. Paternal can be just as good as maternal. I wouldn't think a male gay couple would have one maternal partner thats a bit stereotypical.

If something happened to their mum they have a few aunties and a gran to help me out.
when children hurt themselves who do they cry for?
don't tell me men can explain to teenage girls with raging hormones whats happening to them and why.

[marinello59]

If something happened to their mum they have a few aunties and a gran to help me out.
when children hurt themselves who do they cry for?
don't tell me men can explain to teenage girls with raging hormones whats happening to them and why.

Are you actually saying here that you couldn't cope with looking after the kids without a woman there or are you saying all men would struggle to look after kids on their own?

[mickeythehibbee]

There are always going to be women who should not be left in charge of a paint brush never mind a child but in the majority of cases children are better off with their mother and father bringing them up.

I don't know how big a majority it is but i would probably agree with you on this. I've been lucky in that this is the case for me but overall i think each families different and what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another. I know a few nutters who came from perfectly happy backgrounds so nothings for sure really.

Just out of curiosity, you really seem to be putting a more important emphasis on the maternal role. If it were two women raising a child would you find it more acceptable than two males?

[Killiehibbie]

Are you actually saying here that you couldn't cope with looking after the kids without a woman there or are you saying all men would struggle to look after kids on their own?

16 hours a day 7 days a week i would crack up and any father i've ever spoken to agrees. I would say nearly all men would struggle to raise children,work and keep a house going. Going to work is a bit light entertainment after running about after them all day i know i was in the house all day when the wife went back to work after our 3 were born.

[Killiehibbie]

I don't know how big a majority it is but i would probably agree with you on this. I've been lucky in that this is the case for me but overall i think each families different and what works for one, doesn't necessarily work for another. I know a few nutters who came from perfectly happy backgrounds so nothings for sure really.

Just out of curiosity, you really seem to be putting a more important emphasis on the maternal role. If it were two women raising a child would you find it more acceptable than two males?

Two women marginally better than two men as the bond betweeen mother and child starts at a an early stage.

[Hibrandenburg]

Man meets woman have children if 2 men choose to live as a couple they don't. A child needs a real mother not a man pretending.

Disagree with that, a child needs at least one loving parent be it mum or dad.

[Jay]

16 hours a day 7 days a week i would crack up and any father i've ever spoken to agrees. I would say nearly all men would struggle to raise children,work and keep a house going. Going to work is a bit light entertainment after running about after them all day i know i was in the house all day when the wife went back to work after our 3 were born.

But that is you! your choice is not to be the main care giver. There are men who stay at home and let the wife work. The single sex couples are choosing to bring their kids up in a way any other couple does.

[ArabHibee]

Mothers in general are maternal men are not their input into a childs upbringing is different.
The 'gay' man in your analogy doesn't know if he's coming or going so hardly a stable person to bring up a child.
:faf: That made me laugh, thanks mate!

[Hibrandenburg]

Mothers in general are maternal men are not their input into a childs upbringing is different.
The 'gay' man in your analogy doesn't know if he's coming or going so hardly a stable person to bring up a child.

The woman in question is guilty of the same however. Does this mean the resulting child should grow up parentless? The orphanages would be chock-a-block using this logic.

[hibsdaft]

i have to say, i have never understood this one. i am 100% behind equal rights, and against discrimination but this isn't about rights - adoption isn't a right - so i don't see the fuss :confused:

[Hibrandenburg]

i have to say, i have never understood this one. i am 100% behind equal rights, and against discrimination but this isn't about rights - adoption isn't a right - so i don't see the fuss :confused:

Should be for parentless children though :agree:

[hibsdaft]

Should be for parentless children though :agree:

fair enough, and thats where my stance of this causes me confusion tbh.

[RyeSloan]

Two women marginally better than two men as the bond betweeen mother and child starts at a an early stage.


And when does the bond with the father start???

I think you are letting your own experience cloud your thoughts...parents support their children in many ways and your simple mothers are better cause they are women argument really doesn't reflect the experience of many people.

As someone said this is surely only something that can be done on a case by case basis.

But having said all that personally I'm not a fan of the idea but can see why in certain cases it may be perfectly OK and why some people firmly believe in it.....do struggle with the thought of the slagging a laddie who pitches up to school with his two gay dads would get tho!!

[AllyF]

It's a tricky one, but everyone deserves equal rights. :agree:

[Sir David Gray]

If you happen to be homosexual, then I believe you just have to accept that one thing you cannot have, is children.

It is physically impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate naturally. If children were meant to be brought up by anything other than a mother and a father, then two women or two men would be able to have children by having sex.

I know someone can father or mother a child and then later on, come out as a homosexual. But at least that birth has been conceived naturally.

I'm not in favour of someone donating eggs/sperm for the sole intention of allowing a homosexual couple to become parents.

[Jay]

If you happen to be homosexual, then I believe you just have to accept that one thing you cannot have, is children.

It is physically impossible for two people of the same sex to procreate naturally. If children were meant to be brought up by anything other than a mother and a father, then two women or two men would be able to have children by having sex.

I know someone can father or mother a child and then later on, come out as a homosexual. But at least that birth has been conceived naturally.

I'm not in favour of someone donating eggs/sperm for the sole intention of allowing a homosexual couple to become parents.

so this leads on to the argument of heterosexual couples having IVF with egg/sperm donors- couples who cannot conceive naturally, should that be allowed?

[Killiehibbie]

There is a report out which again comes to the conclusion children are better off with 2 parents 1 male and the other female to be called Mum and Dad. There will always be cases where this not best but on the whole this gives a child the best chance in life.

[Sir David Gray]

so this leads on to the argument of heterosexual couples having IVF with egg/sperm donors- couples who cannot conceive naturally, should that be allowed?

That's a tricky one. Personally, I would say no. There are other ways that childless heterosexual couples can have children i.e. adoption or fostering.

[RyeSloan]

That's a tricky one. Personally, I would say no. There are other ways that childless heterosexual couples can have children i.e. adoption or fostering.

Just like you would have people die of inherited disease you would want a couple to be without the joy of their own child? That's very Christian of you. :bitchy:

[Sir David Gray]

Just like you would have people die of inherited disease you would want a couple to be without the joy of their own child? That's very Christian of you. :bitchy:

The case that I was specifically asked about was egg/sperm donors in IVF treatment. So by that very nature, if the sperm/eggs are being donated by a third party, then it wouldn't be their "own" child".

I have nothing against IVF treatment if it uses eggs and sperm of the two people involved in the relationship.

As I've already said, if a couple can't conceive naturally, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from adopting or fostering a child. If anything, that is very Christian of me as children who are up for adoption have obviously been given up by their natural parents, and are therefore in need of a loving home.

I believe that is a better option than taking donated sperm or eggs.

[Jay]

The case that I was specifically asked about was egg/sperm donors in IVF treatment. So by that very nature, if the sperm/eggs are being donated by a third party, then it wouldn't be their "own" child".

I have nothing against IVF treatment if it uses eggs and sperm of the two people involved in the relationship.

As I've already said, if a couple can't conceive naturally, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from adopting or fostering a child. If anything, that is very Christian of me as children who are up for adoption have obviously been given up by their natural parents, and are therefore in need of a loving home.

I believe that is a better option than taking donated sperm or eggs.

Thats a bit of a contradiction Falkirk. Even if a couple have IVF using their own sperm and eggs it is not classed as conceiving naturally.

[Sir David Gray]

Thats a bit of a contradiction Falkirk. Even if a couple have IVF using their own sperm and eggs it is not classed as conceiving naturally.

It's an extremely complex issue. I just think that it's acceptable for two people to get a bit of assistance, if they are using their own sperm and eggs.

I am not against all forms of medical advances, in some cases it is extremely useful. I agree with drugs being used to help fight diseases, but I don't agree with altering a person's genetics to prevent the disease.

By the same token, I believe in IVF, so long as the treatment only uses sperm and eggs of the two people involved. But I don't agree with donations from third parties.

I understand how that might seem hypocritical, but I think that the limited use of medical advances is totally acceptable, but I also think it's extremely important that there is a line drawn somewhere and that the line is not crossed.

[Jay]

It's an extremely complex issue. I just think that it's acceptable for two people to get a bit of assistance, if they are using their own sperm and eggs.

I am not against all forms of medical advances, in some cases it is extremely useful. I agree with drugs being used to help fight diseases, but I don't agree with altering a person's genetics to prevent the disease.

By the same token, I believe in IVF, so long as the treatment only uses sperm and eggs of the two people involved. But I don't agree with donations from third parties.

I understand how that might seem hypocritical, but I think that the limited use of medical advances is totally acceptable, but I also think it's extremely important that there is a line drawn somewhere and that the line is not crossed.

I appreciate we have moved off the original topic a wee bit but it is interesting me as to why you think these things. Why shouldn't a couple use donors. I know you are saying you are against it but I am intrigued as to why.

IVF uses a selection process to use the strongest eggs. These unused eggs are fertilised so are they babies? It brings up your abortion issues. It also incorporates the issues of choosing the healthiest eggs to implant therefor bringing up your issues with designer babies.

I am surprised you support IVF at all really.

[Sir David Gray]

I appreciate we have moved off the original topic a wee bit but it is interesting me as to why you think these things. Why shouldn't a couple use donors. I know you are saying you are against it but I am intrigued as to why.

IVF uses a selection process to use the strongest eggs. These unused eggs are fertilised so are they babies? It brings up your abortion issues. It also incorporates the issues of choosing the healthiest eggs to implant therefor bringing up your issues with designer babies.

I am surprised you support IVF at all really.

I understand why it seems contradictory. I just think there is a very thin line between what's ethical and what's not.

The way I see it is, these eggs may be getting selected, because they are the most healthy. But I have no problems with it, purely because they are eggs that belong to the woman concerned.

The same argument is applied to sperm.

Please tell me if I have got this wrong, but I don't believe the "healthy" eggs are genetically modified in any way that will alter the baby's DNA, which I see as the fundamental difference between selecting healthy eggs for IVF and deliberately "designing" a baby to stop illness/disease.

[Jay]

I understand why it seems contradictory. I just think there is a very thin line between what's ethical and what's not.

The way I see it is, these eggs may be getting selected, because they are the most healthy. But I have no problems with it, purely because they are eggs that belong to the woman concerned.

The same argument is applied to sperm.

Please tell me if I have got this wrong, but I don't believe the "healthy" eggs are genetically modified in any way that will alter the baby's DNA, which I see as the fundamental difference between selecting healthy eggs for IVF and deliberately "designing" a baby to stop illness/disease.


Again I am not 100% sure but I think in some cases they test the embryos in couples who are known to carry certain genes and replace the ones without that gene but in a normal infertile couple they are selected for the 'healthiness' of the embryo. They dont alter the DNA as far as I know but I am by no means an expert.