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 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
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.
If something is so expensive that it IS really only affordable by the rich, then that IS social discrimination. What else would you call it?
Do you think a child is a luxury item?? Do you think wealth necessarily makes good parents? As I wrote, you have to be somewhere near a completely perfect human being/couple to get a child for adoption, so for some the option is NOT truly there.
You are entitled to your 2 cents, I do not see what your final sentence has to do with anything. What do you mean “socialized medicine, icky”?
Originally posted by The Omega
If something is so expensive that it IS really only affordable by the rich, then that IS social discrimination. What else would you call it?Do you think a child is a luxury item?? Do you think wealth necessarily makes good parents? As I wrote, you have to be somewhere near a completely perfect human being/couple to get a child for adoption, so for some the option is NOT truly there.
You are entitled to your 2 cents, I do not see what your final sentence has to do with anything. What do you mean “socialized medicine, icky”?
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.
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.
I don't generally agree with socialized medicine, thats another topic.
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
[QUOTE=6684328]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?
Re: Free artificial insemination for lesbian couples and single women in DK
Originally posted by The Omega
Today the Danish parliament passed a new law – legislation that not only allows lesbian couples and single women to be artificially inseminated. It’ll be done through the Danish Healthcare system, which means it will be done for free with semen from anonymous donors.I’m unsure what to think of this law…
I think it's a great thing, a step in the right direction. Good on Denmark. If the state has a policy of aiding childless couples, it should apply to all childless couples, not just heterosexual ones.
1) Is it a RIGHT to have children? Why must the state PAY for single women and lesbian couples to have the insemination?
I am not such if there is a piece of paper that says "the right to produce children is inalianable and inherant" - but the concensus is that it is a right. Which is why people who propose things like enforced abortions or sterilisation for drug addicts and the disabled are so rarely supported. And as above, if the state has already been doing it for heterosexual couples, it is only right the option should be there for lesbian couples.
2) What about the right of the children to know who their father is?
Heterosexual women who use sperm donors are not troubled by this, I see no reason why it should suddenly cause a problem for a lesbian couple.
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.
I don't think that would work, nor would having women working as surrogate mothers be a really justifiable thing. I would think that improving adoption laws to give a gay couple the chance to have children would be better.
Originally posted by Jonathan Mark
You guys have free health care? Damn I wish we did that over here in America...
Yes, in DK healthcare is free. Well, we pay for it over the taxes, but it’s healthcare built on solidarity if you like, and polls show the Danes like it that way.
Originally posted by Soleran
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?I was speaking of adoption vs insemination, just a cost/risk analysis.
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?
I’m undecided on “the right to have children” as it is, Soleran. See, if treatment must be paid for by the couples it will be very costly, and that means a lot of couples would be unable to afford it. That’s what I mean with social discrimination – if only the rich REALLY have the option. If you mean that the state should not pay for treatment of singles and lesbian couples, then we’re bordering on sexual discrimination. Again, a problem as I see it. Homosexuality is not a choice as I see it.
And the legislation around adoption is very severe. I don’t know how it is in the States. This I find odd, actually, because people who can produce their own kids are not put through the same harsh test and procedures…
And the healthcare in DK is paid over the taxes. Solidarity healthcare, so everyone can get treatment, see a doctor, go to hospitals etc. I do not know what gave you the impression it was only for the rich. If you do not have solidarity healthcare, I don’t know how ordinary people manage to afford costly procedures etc.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Heterosexual women who use sperm donors are not troubled by this, I see no reason why it should suddenly cause a problem for a lesbian couple.
I mean, should the child have a right to know who it’s biological father is? This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the couple/single woman in question.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I don't think that would work, nor would having women working as surrogate mothers be a really justifiable thing. I would think that improving adoption laws to give a gay couple the chance to have children would be better.
I see that surrogate mothers could be a problem. Certainly. But IF the state treats childlessness regardless of the REASON, we may end up in a strange gender discrimination towards gay couples and single men! Would you suggest giving gay couples and single men a BETTER chance at adoption?
Re: Free artificial insemination for lesbian couples and single women in DK
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 The Omega
I mean, should the child have a right to know who it’s biological father is? This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the couple/single woman in question.
It's a question that is relevant to many family units - adoption, single parents, with sperm donors and so forth.
To my knowledge in the case of sperm donors the father can specify whether he wishes to allow for the child to track him down when they
are old enough. The child and donors choice.
With adoption the child can track the parents down if they wish.
With divorce and single parents the decision is usually reached through the courts and/or the parents.
In the case here, with IVF, it is assumed it that the father is pretty much a sperm donor, possibly known to the couple. Now, it is quite possibly he might not wish contact with the child, or maybe he is happy that when the child is old enough they make their own decision. In the end it would be worked out by the concerned parties. Regardless I don't think it is an inherent right (or problem) that a child know their biological father. There are many, many children out there who do not know one (or even both) of their biological parents - so we have step parents, foster parents, adoptive parents, single parents - family units that can all function perfectly well even though the child might not know their biological father (or mother.)
[/b]I see that surrogate mothers could be a problem. Certainly. But IF the state treats childlessness regardless of the REASON, we may end up in a strange gender discrimination towards gay couples and single men! Would you suggest giving gay couples and single men a BETTER chance at adoption? [/B]
No, not a better chance of adoption, but a more equal chance.