akitas Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Sorry Billy, imagine Same Difference from The X Factor, multiply it by about 10, then ask the question again You just want to put us all off. Your family sounds lovely. And maybe you should hand out waiting numbers now for joining your family Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boosboss Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 You just want to put us all off. Your family sounds lovely. And maybe you should hand out waiting numbers now for joining your family Honestly, The Waltons we're not! Although looking back, we did have the same bedtime ritual, "Night Mary Ellen" How far off topic can we go eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Who would have thought that a thread with 'sperm' in the title would end up at the Waltons... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Who would have thought that a thread with 'sperm' in the title would end up at the Waltons... Now is that really something you want to discuss cycas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I meant that in an ideal world we would all do what is best for us and our children, but it doesn't always work that way.I never planned to get divorced. Never planned to be a single mother and never expected my (ex)husband not to care about our children anymore. I think we have all these ideals when we start a relationship, but unfortunately sometimes reality catches up with us in form from unemployment, psychological problems, health etc.... Lucky you having grown up with both parents. From my own experience kids are very adaptable to new situation, very much like dog (Just kidding) As I said I didn't, though never far away yo be fair, my parent split when I was about 12. Adaptable we may be but that doesn't make it right & whilst I don't think many people have a good word to say about the CSA I think the comment about your ex husband for me sums up the problem. It simply shouldn't be possible or acceptable to society as a whole for any parent to turn around & say they don't care / wont pay etc. I don't see that as idealism but a failing in the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Who is to decide what's "the norm"? Okay I said wasn't going to but as each of you appears to assume "the norm" to imply normal / abnormal that's not my interpretation. For me "the norm" basically means in accordance with the majority. Dictionary definitions could include mean / average. Nobody decides anything it's just a biological and statistical fact that the majority of parents / carers / children are hetrosexual. I accept that there are other reasons children tease, bully etc. I'd also accept that bullying someone because of their / their parents sexuality isn't right but there's no doubt that it happens. I say that a role model of each gender is best for a child. I accept that you can usually find an exception to most "rules" but that doesn't mean it works for the majority. I accept Boosboss's argument that children can have other role models than parents when necessary. But for me they should first and foremost be able to count on their parents - why else would you have children than to nurture them as best you can? In this thread we aren't talking about a child whose parents have died - both parents and "stepmum" are all there yet neither father nor "step mum" seems to be able / be willing to provide for this child - either financially or emotionally. That being the case I say that none of them should have chosen to have one. I accept that can also be applied to many hetrosexual relationships but the reality is that it would be virtually impossible to stop those couples having produced a child. In this situation science was used to help create a situation that could otherwise not have occured. Yes in the short term the lesbian couple got what they wanted but what about the kid who as far as I can see has now been let down by at least two of those people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I accept that can also be applied to many hetrosexual relationships but the reality is that it would be virtually impossible to stop those couples having produced a child. In this situation science was used to help create a situation that could otherwise not have occured. Science? All they needed was a basic cooking tool. It was a private arrangement between friends, apparently. If you can't stop people having sex, you can't really stop them making private arrangements with kitchen utensils either. Would it have made a difference if the man and woman had had sex on one occasion specifically in order to conceive? or if they had had sex without thinking at all, and ended up with a child? OK, they didn't follow it through properly, but at least they went into it with eyes open and the child was wanted and planned (which is not, of course, to say that unplanned children are necessarily unwanted, but in general, you'd think planning would be a good move). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigga Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I accept that can also be applied to many hetrosexual relationships but the reality is that it would be virtually impossible to stop those couples having produced a child. In this situation science was used to help create a situation that could otherwise not have occured. I have to say i dont really understand what you mean by this?why would it have been virtually impossible to have stopped them?As Cycas says a basic cooking tall nothing particully scientific to it. These people were 3 consenting adults that had all agreed to do this after a lot of discussion no doubt yes it has now gone abit tits up but these things happen to gay couples or straight couples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Science? All they needed was a basic cooking tool. It was a private arrangement between friends, apparently. If you can't stop people having sex, you can't really stop them making private arrangements with kitchen utensils either. Would it have made a difference if the man and woman had had sex on one occasion specifically in order to conceive? or if they had had sex without thinking at all, and ended up with a child? Seriously? This didn't appear to be mentioned when I saw it on GMTV. Would we all agree however thathe origin of artificial insemination was developed via scientific research not some fool in the kitchen? As for whether it would have made a difference I think this depends in what context you mean the question. If you mean would I think that was okay then the answer is no. In a legal context however I'd suggest that it would very much have made a difference as whilst it would not help the child in other ways there would be no dispute that this man was liable for his childs support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (edited) I have to say i dont really understand what you mean by this?why would it have been virtually impossible to have stopped them?As Cycas says a basic cooking tall nothing particully scientific to it. These people were 3 consenting adults that had all agreed to do this after a lot of discussion no doubt yes it has now gone abit tits up but these things happen to gay couples or straight couples. I realise of course that it is unlikely that you & I will agree on this subject but I'm not sure why the shocked looking smilie if you say you don't really understand what I mean? As to why it would be virtually impossible to prevent the production of a child by sexual intercourse, well, however unsuitable the parents, how exactly would you suggest that you could prevent anyone having sex / ensuring that they used contraception? I think that the above response probably covers your comment on this happening to people of all sexual persuasions and why I thought it would have been possible to prevent artificial insemination in this case but if not feel free to ask again (I was not ignoring your earlier post I merely believe that the anger you apparently directed at my post was more about the trio creating the entire "story" and the difficulties they may have caused you than anything in this thread itself) Edited December 7, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSDFan Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 Seriously? This didn't appear to be mentioned when I saw it on GMTV. Would we all agree however thathe origin of artificial insemination was developed via scientific research not some fool in the kitchen? No, actually I doubt we would agree. The first ( I believe ) documented successful human artificial insemination was in 1884, although it wasn't done by someone in a kitchen, fool or otherwise, I doubt it was developed through scientific research. Artificial insemination of some animals has been carried out for much longer than that. It doesn't take too much scientific research to work out how to make babies. I don't really think the man in this case should be liable for maintenance. I do however think he has been a bit foolish to get himself in the position where he can be considered liable. I know 3 lesbian couples who have had a child by the 'turkey baster' method. Two of these couples have had no contact whatsoever with the biological father since, one couple has regular contact. In all three cases they seem to raising perfectly 'normal' children who don't suffer from any more problems than the children I know in heterosexual partnerships. They possibly have less problems because they are children of very stable and long term relationships, unlike the children of many heterosexual relationships. Personally I think what children need is stability, whether that stability is provided by two women, two men, a man and a woman, or by just one parent of either sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cycas Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 I think that very much depends on what you mean by science. It's exactly the kind of thing that often doesn't get documented, and may well have been invented a number of times! I don't know how these particular people went about it, but I would say that insemination in terms of 'unnatural science' is roughly on a level with, say, wiping down your kitchen surfaces with bleach to reduce 'natural' gastrointestinal problems: it's something you could come up with without understanding every detail of the underlying biology. It's not something that requires special knowledge, laboratories and people in white coats. One could argue that it is quintessentially natural for a human animal to use simple tools and come up with clever solutions to solve a problem and get to the desired result! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigga Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (I was not ignoring your earlier post I merely believe that the anger you apparently directed at my post was more about the trio creating the entire "story" and the difficulties they may have caused you than anything in this thread itself) Oh please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tigga Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 (I was not ignoring your earlier post I merely believe that the anger you apparently directed at my post was more about the trio creating the entire "story" and the difficulties they may have caused you than anything in this thread itself) Oh please The shocked smiley is at your attitude and no we wont ever agree My anger was the fact you made the hole process sound unnatural because the couple were gay and it isnt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted December 7, 2007 Report Share Posted December 7, 2007 No, actually I doubt we would agree. The first ( I believe ) documented successful human artificial insemination was in 1884, although it wasn't done by someone in a kitchen, fool or otherwise, I doubt it was developed through scientific research. Artificial insemination of some animals has been carried out for much longer than that. It doesn't take too much scientific research to work out how to make babies. Well the first human artifical insemination was achieved by a Scottish surgeon, DR John Hunter approximately a century earlier (articles quote 1770's to 1785 dependant upon which you wish to believe). The second, which did happen in 1884 took place at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, USA so I'm not sure on what basis you place your doubts. http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/revie...m?id=1248902002 http://www.fertilityfriends.co.uk/content/view/220/99 http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/cata...9107&ss=exc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts