... I want to say what I think without having to justify it with endless, worthy argument. It's dangerous to do that, of course, in this day and age. We are all supposed to be reasoned and reasonable. Everyone has rights and they are to be respected whether or not they impinge on the rights of others.
Well, for the avoidance of doubt, I have reasoned arguments behind everyone of the following topical statements, available on request:
If your life choice is to weigh more than is medically recommended, you do not have the right to expect IVF treatment at tax payers expense which is proven to be markedly less effective. Lose some weight.
If your sexual imperative is to form a relationship with one of your own, thus biologically ruling out procreation, you cannot then claim that your lifelong desire is to have children and that the tax payer should inseminate you. Make your mind up. You are either gay or you want children.
If you commit murder, you cannot then claim insanity. That you may be insane can and may be medically diagnosed, but if the fact that your deliberate actions killed someone is proven in a court of law, justice must be served undiluted. Your condition, once identified, must be treated with kindness and sympathy. The latter, however, does not mitigate the former. Which ever way you look at it, the life of an innocent person has been snuffed out, so you are either a murderer or you are mentally unstable with a proven capacity for killing. Remorseful or not, the public require to be protected from you and most probably you need to be protected from yourself.
(Source: Admission Impossible, Channel 4, 9pm, Wed 30 Aug) If you place your child in the most exhausting and emotionally draining private school selection process, and that child then achieves a place at the school of her (and your) dreams through hard work and dedication, and achieving you a massive 40% means tested fees bursary to boot, do not then tell her you can't afford it. Figure it out first.
Everyone of us is born different (thank god) which therefore means that we all have different skills, talents and aptitudes which in turn result in differing levels of personal achievement. By any measure, these differences rule out any prospect of equality. True and pure equality cannot and does not exist. Get over it and stop trying to pretend it does. And stop trying to enforce your 'rights' as some sort of compensation for your shortcomings.
That's me done for now. As I say, reasoned argument is available on request for any of the above issues. (Only requests from Tommy G will be ignored!!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
richard, there's no contradiction whatsoever between being gay and wanting children. Whether the state should pay for IVF - for anyone - is an entirely different matter. If you believe children are a 'right', rather than a privilege, it's surely legitimate for the state to assist. And that should, most logically, be based on ability to parent, not sexual orientation. Whether the NHS should assist with IVF is an entirely different question toi whether it's legitimate to discriminate on the basis of sexuality. But, please Richard, no more ill-thought through and, frankly, offensive rants re 'you're either gay or want children'.
As I said, the thought-through bit is available on request.
However, got it in one - I do not believe that children are a right. Clearly you exist in the "everyone is equal / cake and eat it" camp. I do not.
Furthermore it is ridiculous to suppose that the NHS or any individual discriminates against gay people over the issue of children. It is indisputably the case that gay people self discriminate by possessing or choosing, depending on your point of view, a sexual imperative that is biologically incapable of delivering children.
It is the imperative of all living things to procreate, regardless of the ability to parent. Therefore the selection of a biologically neutral relationship must prove the contradiction.
Remove medical science for a moment and understand that children cannot be a right. I am not convinced that medical science should interfere in creation at all, but gay people certainly cannot expect to make use of such services as a right at the tax payers expense. In contact with the appropriate opposite, they all possess functioning sexual organs that are more than likely to achieve creation nature's way.
You may disagree with my view, but it is not offensive to point out the facts of life. Unless that is, you are trying to shut the debate down with howls of "It's my right!".
not trying to close down debate, merely to elevate it! your 'logic' suggests those who choose to smoke should not get NHS treatment, drinkers can die of cirrhosis unaided and, perhaps at its most absurd, soldiers who've 'chosen' that career shouldn't receive NHS treatment if injured during the course of their duties. They could, after all, have 'chosen' a safer profession, in the same way as the lesbian could have 'chosen' a husband to procreate with! If you find the soldier analogy offensive, think about the logic of your original position.
ps i don't think children are a right - that's a different question!
not trying to close down debate, merely to elevate it! To extend your 'logic' further suggests those who choose to smoke should not get NHS treatment, drinkers can die of cirrhosis unaided and, perhaps at its most absurd, soldiers who've 'chosen' that career shouldn't receive NHS treatment if injured during the course of their duties. They could, after all, have 'chosen' a safer profession, in the same way as the lesbian could have 'chosen' a husband to procreate with! If you find the soldier analogy offensive, think about the logic of your original position.
ps we agree on one thing - i don't think children are a right - but that's a different question!
Your soldier analogy is not offensive. It is absurd.
The maintenance of an armed force by any government comes with the cost of repairing any damage that results from its use, be they conscripts or volunteers.
And just remember, metaphorically at least, if thousands of people like me didn't volunteer, thousands of people like you would be conscripted.
I do indeed think very deeply about the justification for treating self inflicted injuries (smoking and drinking related particularly) at tax payers expense. I do indeed wonder whether a free health service simply promotes a "devil may care" attitude that ultimately costs the tax payer vastly more than it would if people paid a more direct penalty for the choices they make. But I would use a proper post to argue the values of private health care rather than a comment.
You do not elevate the discussion by comparing a lesbian's revulsion at sleeping with a man to achieve her desire for a child with a volunteer fighting for his country. Or at least, not on this blog, you don't!
Whilst I understand that some might take umbrage at the choice of words, I have to agree with the idea.
People who choose to make procreation impossible, can pay the cost of solving the problem themselves.
But then I think that the NHS is noting less than the nationalisation of our bodies. It is used to justify endless intrusions into our private lives.
In these kind of situations, I always ask myself 'What would Brian Cant, from 80s kids' TV think?'.
I think that's a good rule of thumb.
All adults should be required by law to have a license to have children. No license, no kids. Gay or straight, sperm or no sperm, eggs or no eggs, it's a license or nothing. That way prospective parents would have to prove that they are fit to be parents before lumbering society with their offspring.
Vicki, sadly you know we must agree to disagree on this issue.
I simply can't accept that it is a woman's right to have children, especially when you balance that by saying that some should be sterilised at birth! It is either all or none, and for me, despite the excruciatingly sad personal tragedies, it is none.
Post a Comment