Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Pretty soon lesbian couples will be artificially inseminated with genetically altered clones of both women. Men will be useless in the repreductive process and will only be used sate lesbian womens curiosities.

I can't wait.

A right to have a child? It's a priviledge in every sense of the word.

Except if you a racist or homophobic, then you should be banned from having a child, IMO.

Babies aren't food stamps.

DK? doesn't that stand for Democratic Kampuchea? Pol Pot anyone?

Originally posted by PrincessMary
Except if you a racist or homophobic, then you should be banned from having a child, IMO. As much as I would like too, let's follow your logic and ban people that want to circumsize their children from having kids. Let's ban Democrat's from having kids, and while we're at it, let's ban Jews from having children.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Pretty soon lesbian couples will be artificially inseminated with genetically altered clones of both women. Men will be useless in the repreductive process and will only be used sate lesbian womens curiosities.

I can't wait.

They can already do it I think... They just have to take the DNA from one egg and stick it in the other egg. We're obsolete.

Originally posted by NineCoronas
As much as I would like too, let's follow your logic and ban people that want to circumsize their children from having kids. Let's ban Democrat's from having kids, and while we're at it, let's ban Jews from having children.

I didn't mean it like that, and I think you know it.

Originally posted by Biatch
Hurray for giving people equal rights!!

It's about damn time!! Women have finally found a way to be completely independent. It's only fair that lesbian couples get the same rights as heterosexual one's. I'm bi myself, and if I ever choose to be with a woman exclusively for the rest of my life, I definitely want to have the option to conceive or adopt, even though I'm too self absorbed to ever really choose the option anyway.

whob, you look really sad...doing this....its sad

Sad...but in a-so-pathetic-it's-funny way.

Originally posted by PVS
whob, you look really sad...doing this....its sad

Don't loose any sleep over it PVS...lol. I'm not sad one bit. I'm actually a bit happy, because I finally think that at least you are finally starting to see how ridiculous some of the stuff you all post sounds.

I hope you all think long and hard about some of the junk opinions you post on these boards. I guarantee you my friend, that the positions and paths that you all follow down, will lead to a rather morbid end.

Fin(er)

Originally posted by Darth Revan
They can already do it I think... They just have to take the DNA from one egg and stick it in the other egg. We're obsolete.

Well, yea, but it's illegal. lol that's why I said 'pretty soon'. We're not obsolete yet, there are plenty of curious lesbian couples out there. woot!

Originally posted by Thetruthhurts
Don't loose any sleep over it PVS...lol. I'm not sad one bit. I'm actually a bit happy, because I finally think that at least you are finally starting to see how ridiculous some of the stuff you all post sounds.

I hope you all think long and hard about some of the junk opinions you post on these boards. I guarantee you my friend, that the positions and paths that you all follow down, will lead to a rather morbid end.

Fin(er)

Stop existing!

Since when did it become a NECCESSITY to have a child? Isn't it just a privilege? This is ridiculous, especially since this is gonna come out of the taxpayers wallets.

Originally posted by Captain REX
Stop existing!

I've fulfilled my purpose here for now. So I'll do just that. I hope you all have learned something. God bless.

-whob

Originally posted by Thetruthhurts
Don't loose any sleep over it PVS...lol.

and dont lose any sleep over the fact that i will call you out every time you make one of your "i need attention" socks.

Originally posted by Biatch
Hurray for giving people equal rights!!

It's about damn time!! Women have finally found a way to be completely independent. It's only fair that lesbian couples get the same rights as heterosexual one's. I'm bi myself, and if I ever choose to be with a woman exclusively for the rest of my life, I definitely want to have the option to conceive or adopt, even though I'm too self absorbed to ever really choose the option anyway.
Man, I liked this Whob... "Biatch" so whob-y.

As was mentioned in previous posts, having a child is a privilege, not a right. My main concern is: male or female, married or single, homo or hetero--if you are unable to provide for that child emotionally and financially, No Kid For You, until you Can properly provide for that child.

I'm also tired of hearing "oh, how wonderful it is," when some woman in her fifties is artificially inseminated. Just because the technology is there for a well-into-middle-aged woman (or man) to have a child, doesn't mean they should. That means dealing with an adolescent when you are in your late 60s, early 70s, and the child not having his/her parent around for as long as someone who was born to younger parents.

And keeping the father out of the picture? There have been several studies now which prove that the presence of a responsible and caring Father in the picture is Just As Important as having the mother around--which does bring up the lesbian angle. If they have a male friend, or "uncle" to provide that male role model, fine. If not--well, let's just say that as much as I am for equal rights for gay couples, I still have some reservations about children being raised soley by one-sex couples.

I don't hold to the above as hard and fast rules, but more general guidelines.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
My question would be, "when did not having children" become a government issue. And, more over, a government issue that had to be addressed with tax payers money? I agree that procreation should NEVER be a matter of the state government. In a world with too many people, government sanctioned reproduction should never be sponsored. Be it straight, gay or transgendered. However, if the people of that state or nation agree, then it isn't up for debate.

It can always be up for debate I think, but do all the people really agree with that? I mean, The Omega seems to be undecided, so it's at least not everyone.

Do they offer this service for gay men, too?

Originally posted by botankus
Do they offer this service for gay men, too?

They might, but I don't think it would work....

Originally posted by Mindship


And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.

And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.


Uh huh, so where can I look up these single parent vs two parent numbers to verify this? I have also heard its MUCH MUCH harder for single parents on average to raise a child, with that come many unexpected hardships that two parent households can avoid.

I've seen kids being raised in a traumatic two parent household. The parents split and the kids are better as a result.

So it can work both ways.

-AC

generalising doesnt work. all one can state is the ideal:

the ideal family consists of two parents, who are in a healthy relationship.
also the ideal situation is that one of those parents remain home to raise
the children when they are toddlers/even young children. people translate that
as "housewife" but both parents can alternate (one working in the evening)
or the father can be the one to stay home. whichever way, its ideal for one
parent to be around at all times in the kids earliest years.

with that aside, i fail to see the relevance to anything legal. all it is, is an ideal.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
And yet single parents tend to do just fine with their children. Infact, there are more single parent households in America than there are happy little two-parent households.

I don't know that that is a fact (though I note that you did not say happy "single parent households".
All else being equal, the ideal is a two-parent household.

Why are lesbians, not to mention the majority of straight people, having kids when so many kids need to be adopted?
just a thought.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It can always be up for debate I think, but do all the people really agree with that? I mean, The Omega seems to be undecided, so it's at least not everyone.

No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference. In fact, I'd support it based on the research that can be done on those families over the course of the next few decades. Statistics like 'how many males raised by single mothers commit crimes in their early teens' and 'how many female children, raised by lesbians, are also lesbian'. But, that isn't really fair to these children.

I'm just saying, I don't think the government should be handing out babies. I don't think they're handing them out to crack whores and junkies, but I don't like the idea of any government getting involved in increasing the population.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference. In fact, I'd support it based on the research that can be done on those families over the course of the next few decades. Statistics like 'how many males raised by single mothers commit crimes in their early teens' and 'how many female children, raised by lesbians, are also lesbian'. But, that isn't really fair to these children.

I'm just saying, I don't think the government should be handing out babies. I don't think they're handing them out to crack whores and junkies, but I don't like the idea of any government getting involved in increasing the population.

I agree with your opinion on the topic but I don't get that

"No, what I mean is that we can debate it all we want, but if the people of Denmark have voted in support of it, then no matter what we say will make a difference."

I mean, that's what we do all the time here, right?

its such a scam. "free artificial insemination"
i offer 100% natural insemination at no charge

Originally posted by Bardock42
I mean, that's what we do all the time here, right?

Yeah.

Originally posted by PVS
its such a scam. "free artificial insemination"
i offer 100% natural insemination at no charge

That's a good idea....please send an application with a pic of yourself in some kind of nudeness....

Originally posted by The Omega
P.S.: Capt> The law was passed in parliament. It was politicans who decided, not the people of DK.

Much like America, I'm sure the intended concept behind representative government in Denmark is that those representatives speak for those people.

But, we all know better. Well, most of us know better.

Originally posted by Mindship
I don't know that that is a fact (though I note that you did not say happy "single parent households".
All else being equal, the ideal is a two-parent household.

I was off, but not by much. Single Parents account for almost 30% of households. Factor in that nearly half of all marriages end in divorce, and the 70% of two-parent households can turn into 35-40%, so it's nearly even. And it's good that you noted happy, but I mentioned happy two-parent households, not one parent.

Yes, the ideal is two-parent, but that doesn't mean the children of single parent households are worse off. It's just different. Two-parent households have just as many problems as single-parent ones, they're just different problems.

http://www.womedia.org/taf_statistics.htm for the source of the percentages

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Yes, the ideal is two-parent, but that doesn't mean the children of single parent households are worse off.

No, not necessarily, I agree. Humans are notoriously flexible and adaptive creatures.

It's stupid, there are too many people in this world now. I'm a socialist but I only approve of necessary procedures, this is like plastic surgery.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Much like America, I'm sure the intended concept behind representative government in Denmark is that those representatives speak for those people.

But, we all know better. Well, most of us know better.

Yeah, you know how it is. Once elected most politicians forget their promises.

Originally posted by Kritish
It's stupid, there are too many people in this world now. I'm a socialist but I only approve of necessary procedures, this is like plastic surgery.

In what way is this law like plastic surgery?
The Danish state pays for treatment of the childless. Up until now this has meant childless heterosexual couples. This new law seems to say, that the state will pay for treatment of childlessness NO matter the reason (single-status, homosexuality).
We must accept that for many having a child is extremely important. And since we now have the means of helping the childless should we not do so?

Originally posted by The Omega
We must accept that for many having a child is extremely important. And since we now have the means of helping the childless should we not do so?


If it means so much to the couple they should perhaps assist and pay for a percentage of the non life threatening medical procedure, all the couples should actually.

Also adoption is anther alternative for families without children to have their family

Soleran> Oh, I agree with you. Put getting an adoption is very difficult, and you almost have to be a semi-deity to be eligible for adoption here in DK (while any morons with half a brain who do not have the childbearing problems can produce as many kids as they want, capable of raising them or not).

If you ask that the childless people start to PAY, then children suddenly become a luxury item exclusively for those who can afford a pricy treatment. That is social discrimination, is it not?

Originally posted by The Omega
If you ask that the childless people start to PAY, then children suddenly become a luxury item exclusively for those who can afford a pricy treatment. That is social discrimination, is it not?



Thats not social discrimination, its preventing the abuse of an expensive treatment that is non-life threatening to be paid for by the Govt (which is funded by the people.)


If the rich can afford it well good for them, the Govt isn't supposed to provide ALL things to people who cannot afford luxuries. Not to mention if someone wants a child that badly I'm sure the adoption program although still a pain is an option. Thats just my 2cents and I'm in the USA anyway so good luck with that, socialized medicine, icky.

Originally posted by Soleran
A luxury item, you absolutely don't need it for your daily survival.

I am not calling a child a luxury item, I am calling this method for getting a child a luxury item.

Yes, I understand you know. It's not the child but the treatment that you consider a luxury item. Do you think that our need for procreation is a fundamental one?

Originally posted by Soleran
If the system sucks change it, the money spent would most likely impact a far greater number of people(adoptee's and the adopted) then this little speed bump of a solution of free insemination for ANYONE not just lesbian couples and single women.

?? What system? Who should change it? Spent what money on what instead? I have no idea what you mean with the above?

Originally posted by Soleran
I don't generally agree with socialized medicine, thats another topic.

I do not understand. Socialized medicine? Do you mean the free health-care system that we have in DK? Should medical treatment only be available to rich people??

Originally posted by The Omega
I do not understand. Socialized medicine? Do you mean the free health-care system that we have in DK? Should medical treatment only be available to rich people??
You guys have free health care? Damn I wish we did that over here in America...

Originally posted by The Omega
Yes, I understand you know. It's not the child but the treatment that you consider a luxury item. Do you think that our need for procreation is a fundamental one?

Sure, I'll buy that. Is it the govt's responsibility to fund your lifestyle choices with a non-life threatening procedure for a luxury?

?? What system? Who should change it? Spent what money on what instead? I have no idea what you mean with the above?

I was speaking of adoption vs insemination, just a cost/risk analysis.

I do not understand. Socialized medicine? Do you mean the free health-care system that we have in DK? Should medical treatment only be available to rich people??

Lets be very honest here, its not exactly free healthcare is it, no didn't think so, the govt pays the bill. No medicine shouldn't be available only for the rich. Is that how you are set up in DK, only for the rich to be supported?

its wrong on the children pure and simple

Originally posted by A.J
its wrong on the children pure and simple

Why?
Nothing is pure and simple.

Originally posted by The Omega
Why?
Nothing is pure and simple.


Sure, don't complicate and confuse, lots of things are simple and pure

Originally posted by The Omega

1) Is it a RIGHT to have children? Why must the state PAY for single women and lesbian couples to have the insemination?

2) What about the right of the children to know who their father is?

3) Should the Danish state also pay for surrogate mothers for gay couples and single men? If the law is passed to ensure all who WANTS kids CAN have them, then equality of gender suggests that gay couples and single men should have the same opportunities.


1) Of course its a right to have kids; according to science its our 'biological function'. I don't believe people should have to pay for other women to get pregnant.

2) Exactly. "A man who does not spend time with his family can never be a real man."- Marlon Brando as Vito Corleone in The Godfather

3) I don't live in Denmark, so that's up to y'all.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura

No, not a better chance of adoption, but a more equal chance.

But then there will be gender-discrimination towards single men and gay couples. Is that right?

And in the meantime I came to the conclusion that we may put to much emphasis on biology in this matter. The FATHER will be the one who raises the child.

Originally posted by The Omega
But then there will be gender-discrimination towards single men and gay couples. Is that right?

No. First step - allow a gay couple to adopt. 2nd Step - Give them equal chance to adopt as a heterosexual couple.

I'm not saying one should be given preference over the over. In most western nations the adoption process is rigorous to insure that the child is going to a good home. What I was suggesting that if we assume that people have a right to have children, and deserve to have children and would be good, then it doesn't matter on the gender of the parents, ff they meet the critera for being good and suitable parents to the child.

Thus equal consideration, not greater consideration or less consideration of the couple in question.