Gay Marriages

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

Should gays have the right to get married?

Yes
28
72%
No
6
15%
Unsure
5
13%
 
Total votes : 39

Postby invisifish » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:35 pm

I think it was that they changed something in the egg wich made it able to fertiles the other egg.
invisifish
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: East Sussex

Postby pinkparrot » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:36 pm

Does it matter whether a male/someone else is involved? :|
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby invisifish » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:44 pm

er (Amy thinks for a wile, not quite understanding the question) could you repeat the question with all the deatayls of what you meen please?
invisifish
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: East Sussex

Postby pinkparrot » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:47 pm

If a male or another person is involved, what effects does it have?
Does it really matter? Why bother putting together a couple of egg cells? Why is an alternative method needed? :?:
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby invisifish » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:50 pm

Sory, i still dont realy understan what you meen. (I'm realy sorry, I'm awful at understanding questions sometimes.)
invisifish
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:48 pm
Location: East Sussex

Postby pinkparrot » Tue Jul 18, 2006 8:53 pm

It's OK, I'm terrible at explaining (just ask Vicky!)

I'll try again.
What is wrong with having someone else help a gay couple to have a child?
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby parnassus » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:06 pm

I repeat what I said earlier. A child is a natural consequence of a natural act (s*x) not a commodity to be created through doubtful means and disposed of like any other factory product. Surrogacy is illegal in Britain, no matter whether you plan to give the child to a hetero- or a homosexual couple. It is illegal because it devalues the child's life and leaves the mother open to exploitation. (A lot of poor women offer to become surrogate mothers for a nice high fee, for example - it is a lucrative business in Eastern Europe.) This is not what having children is about.

You are what you were created. Respect your body.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5883
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby pinkparrot » Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:08 pm

I didn't know it was illegal!
OK, I have REALLY got to start paying more attention to stuff like that!
:oops: :oops: :oops:
User avatar
pinkparrot
As Mad As A Box Of Frogs !
 
Posts: 2609
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 12:52 pm

Postby Hermionefan5 » Sun Jul 23, 2006 2:43 pm

It's legal here. On "Friends" Phoebe was a surrogate mother of triplets at one point for her brother and his wife. It was because they couldn't have kids. I think that in-vitro is kind of strange, but I think it is okay because if a couple really wants a kid and they would be good parents then they should be able to have a kid whether that's adopting one or having one of their own. The problem comes when you start trying to perfect the child (like you try to make it without any problems which is virtually impossible-I've seen freaky movies about it). In one movie they tried to make a perfect race where there were people specialized in a certain area (like Olympic swimming for example), but the people turned out to have other problems like depression or a violent disposition. Others whose parents had decided not to do in-vitro were considered outcasts and didn't get to have good jobs, lives, or anything. They were treated like an underclass. It was a very good futuristic film. I think it could realistically happen with all of this "choosing the baby's gender" and stuff that goes on with in-vitro. If I ever did in-vitro, I would never try to perfect or change the gender of my kid. People aren't supposed to be perfect in every way or killed because they are the wrong gender (which mostly happens to girl babies who are done through in-vitro). Anyway, that's my take on in-vitro fertilization and surrogate mothership.
Image is from "Gilmore Girls" Season 1
"You are the same as everyone else."--"Forrest Gump"
"I want you to go out there and skate for these people like I have seen you skate."--"The Cutting Edge"
User avatar
Hermionefan5
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: The United States of America :)

Postby Kentigern » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:14 pm

I think that in-vitro fertilization (IVF) is gravely wrong.

IVF involves removing ovaries from the female and sperm from the male to create embryos in a petri dish. It is important to stress that multiple embryos are created, but only some are used. Because of the way these embryos are made in IVF, some of them will die.

Several embryos are then implanted in the women, but after a bit more development all but one of the rest of the embryos are also killed. Spare embryos from IVF are often stored in fridges (and are eventually killed), or instead are used for medical research (stem cell research) which also results in the embryos being killed.

I believe that as soon as the sperm meets the ovary and combines to form an embryo one has created new human life. It may not look like a human, but it is the start of a gradual process of growth and development that will produce a fully grown human being 18 years after birth. Embryos are fully human in the same way that a child of 2 is considered fully human.

Obviously I believe that it is wrong to kill humans, therefore IVF is also wrong because it involves killing human embryos who are fully human.

Gordon
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

Postby Hermionefan5 » Sun Jul 23, 2006 3:20 pm

Yeah, but what if you didn't kill any of the embryos? Then would it still be wrong? Just playing devil's advocate here. :) I am personally glad that we banned embryonic stem cell research this week. :) Finally Bush does something good in his presidency. :D Bush did meet with some kids who had been born through IVF and saved from being discarded. They had been adopted as embryos because apparently the parents who did the IVF to get them did not want (or did not need them anymore). So I guess the kids who did not get picked by the parents could be adopted by other parents who wanted them. I don't understand the problem in that since it is now illegal to do stem cell research on embryos here in the U.S. All of the kids who were in the fridges will probably now be eligable for adoption or something. :)
Image is from "Gilmore Girls" Season 1
"You are the same as everyone else."--"Forrest Gump"
"I want you to go out there and skate for these people like I have seen you skate."--"The Cutting Edge"
User avatar
Hermionefan5
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 2358
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 2:51 pm
Location: The United States of America :)

Postby tears_on_a_pillow » Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:45 pm

Let's give this a different angel, imagine a world where the norm is to be gay or lesbian and there is a movement of people asking for hetrosexists to be allowed to marry, how would you feel? How would it affect you?

As a person who is at ease with her sexuality, currently in a wonderful relationship with a wonderful woman, I can see both the 'homo' and 'hetro' arguements as I am bisexual and biphobia is on the increase as people still have a lot of prejudices.

I am active within the LGBTQ community and have been since my early teens, so ask away and il try and answer.
x
tears_on_a_pillow
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1460
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:08 pm
Location: Leeds

Postby happy_go_lucky » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:38 am

an embryo is a collection of cells its like removing a growth and then claiming it was alive they have no thoughts no feelings it is attrociouse that the life saving reasearch was banned
happy_go_lucky
Super Poster
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 9:39 am

Postby kitty_cute » Tue Aug 08, 2006 4:36 pm

an embryo is a collection of cells its like removing a growth and then claiming it was alive they have no thoughts no feelings it is attrociouse that the life saving reasearch was banned


Yeah but it's still going to be a human being. I was an embryo, and so were you, and now we're living and breathing. Those embryo's that are killed, could be anything - the next Einstein, the next Maddonna?

This debate could go back to the Animal Testing debate - what's more important an animal, or a human being?

It's a difficult desision!
Japan ! ^_^ <super kawaii>

No PM'S please unless it's urgent =]
User avatar
kitty_cute
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 pm
Location: UK

Postby Kentigern » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:49 pm

kitty_cute is right. Any embryo is fully human, and whether it can feel or think is irrelevent.

The embryo in the first stages of development is at the start of a gradual process that will last over 20 years to produce a fully grown unique human being with potential. Birth is no more than a change in environment, there is no clear point in the human development process were the embryo stops being a colection of cells and starts being a human being. As soon as the sperm meets the egg there is a third person involved. To kill this third person to do medical research is, in my oppinion, the same as killing a 22 year old human being to do medical research.
Gordon Lawrence

Image
Kentigern
Mega Poster
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Cardiff, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron