[fruit_cake]

after reading comments from UKT and Black Dagger about gay men being able to have children via surrogacy etc on another thread, I was wondering if TiBB's gay members men or women, are planning to use this as an 'option' in the future?

discuss

[Kizzy]

I would like to think that it would be an option readily accepted in the future.

[Black Dagger]

I do plan on adopting when I am finally in a happy relationship and I doubt I will worry about the consequences of 'he/she will get bullied' children are ruthless, and of course I'd want them to be happy, but at the end of the day they would have two Dad's who love them to bits... as long as I protected them I'd know I'd do the right thing.

[Sam:)]

Im not gay but I think two gay fathers>a chavvy mother who spends all the welfare on drink

[Shaun]

Adopting probably, if I settled down with a guy

[AnnieK]

Any child is lucky to have two parents who love them....other kids are cruel and it could be something they get teased for....but so could having red hair, glasses or not the right pair of trainers....love is the most important. A friend of mines sister and her wife have just had a baby and everyone has been very supportive....

[Ninastar]

yeah this is something I want to do

but I'd also love to adopt.

[Mystic Mock]

Yes, I will be very happy with a child in 50 years time.

Sorry for trolling but someone had to say it lol.

[aman201]

I'd adopt, most probably.

[lostalex]

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

Thats nothing short of insanity are you really that far gone that you believe that or are you just playing devils advocate?

I prefer to think its the latter if not enjoy your eugenics the Nazi's loved the idea.

You are such a silly sometimes alex

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'd definitely adopt. I find the whole idea of needing to spread your genes perverse.

I hope that in the future all children are made in labs by the government, and only qualified responsible people are allowed to raise children. There would be a whole program. And only people that have no history of violence, have the proper means to support children, and took at least 2 years of child care training would be allowed to adopt.

I don't think having children is a human right.

Flaw in your rationale here: without the need for others to 'spread their genes'.... there would be no children to adopt - for anyone.

As for the lab comments..... I've read some whacky ideas on here - but this beats them all.

I do agree that having a child should not be a human right. I also think that yes, 2 parents (regardless of gender/sexuality) is better than one ideally but one parent - gay or not - can be as good (if not better) a parent as any other out there.

Beats the hell out of me why there are those in society who are so against gays adopting/surrogating a child - some people do want to care, love and nurture and give a good home and family life to those so very less fortunate: and it should matter not a jot if they are gay.

[lostalex]

Think about it this way, how many years of school is required for someone to be a dentist? someone who just works on your teeth. How many years of training are required to be a parent? the most important job on the planet.

There's something wrong in that equation.

I think that at puberty all children should have eggs or sperm extracted and put on freeze. Then the government would choose the best donors genetically, and then surrogates would be used to cary the children, then once the child is born, the child would go to an appropriate couple to be adopted. There would only be children created for the number of qualified parents available. No parents would ever raise their own biological children.

i think that would be a good system. Eventually I think science will advance to the point where we don't even need surrogates, we will be able to develop the embryo's in synthetic wombs.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

Think about it this way, how many years of school is required for someone to be a dentist? someone who just works on your teeth. How many years of training are required to be a parent? the most important job on the planet.

There's something wrong in that equation.

I'm not entirely clear what ''how many years training does it take to become a parent'' has to do with, "If you are gay, will you use the surrogacy / donor option" - which is what the thread is about.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not entirely clear what ''how many years training does it take to become a parent'' has to do with, "If you are gay, will you use the surrogacy / donor option" - which is what the thread is about.

I'm talking about adopting period. sexuality is irrelevant. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Adoption, surrogacy, procreation in general. The conversation has obviously evolved. Do try to keep up.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I'm talking about adopting period. sexuality is irrelevant. I'm looking at the bigger picture. Adoption, surrogacy, procreation in general. The conversation has obviously evolved. Do try to keep up.

Talking of keeping up... and of procreation - without which there would be no adoptions etc.

Flaw in your rationale here: without the need for others to 'spread their genes'.... there would be no children to adopt - for anyone

How do you propose that adoptees are made available if people don't want to spread their genes (even via test tubes....you still need the raw material).

Sexuality is VERY relevant given the nature of the thread.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Talking of keeping up... and of procreation - without which there would be no adoptions etc.



How do you propose that adoptees are made available if people don't want to spread their genes (even via test tubes....you still need the raw material).

Sexuality is VERY relevant given the nature of the thread.

like i said, if there was an agency that had samples of sperm and eggs from everyone, that agency could then choose the best combinations, with no thought put into who those sample came from. procreation is just as possible without any kind of sex. You do realize that sex has nothing to do with procreation anymore right? It won't be long before IVF is more common than sexual conception in the western world.

There is nothing special about heterosexual sex. IVF has nothing to do with sexual intercourse gay or straight at all.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by lostalex

like i said, if there was an agency that had sample of sperm and eggs for everyone, procreation is just as capable without any kind of sex. You do realize that sex has nothing to do with procreation anymore right? It won't be long before IVF is more common than sexual conception in the western world.

There is nothing special about heterosexual sex.

That's the thing about 'if'..... they don't always produce the results.

Hetrosexual sex ...nothing special about the sexual act perhaps if comparing the actual act itself ....but there most definitely is something special in respect of the results - without which, there would be no children to adopt.

You've not thought this one out at all really. But of course....you know that.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

That's the thing about 'if'..... they don't always produce the results.

Hetrosexual sex ...nothing special about the sexual act perhaps if comparing the actual act itself ....but there most definitely is something special in respect of the results - without which, there would be no children to adopt.

You've not thought this one out at all really. But of course....you know that.

children from IVF would be just as adoptable, so i don't know what you are talking about.

i said, at puberty, sperm and eggs would be taken from everyone, i think i forgot to then mention that everyone would then be sterilized after that. Everyone would be sterilized in the same way we all get polio vaccines. So everyone would be adopting. It would be impossible for anyone to procreate through sex. That was probably an important detail i left out.

But yea, all people would be incapable of having children through intercourse, and everyone would have to APPLY to adopt through that government agency, and only the most qualified people would be allowed to raise the next generation of children. The WHOLE POINT being that only qualified capable parents would be raising children.

[AnnieK]

[QUOTE=lostalex;5498959]children from IVF would be just as adoptable, so i don't know what you are talking about.

i said, at puberty, sperm and eggs would be taken from everyone, i think i forgot to then mention that everyone would then be sterilized after that. Everyone would be sterilized in the same way we all get polio vaccines. So everyone would be adopting. It would be impossible for anyone to procreate through sex. That was probably an important detail i left out.

But yea, all people would be incapable of having children through intercourse, and everyone would have to APPLY to adopt through that government agency, and only the most qualified people would be allowed to raise the next generation of children. The WHOLE POINT being that only qualified capable parents would be



Nothing gives anyone the right to take away a person's right to bear children....especially the government - who would deem that people are qualified enough? This is life - not a film.....

The problem with the IVF procedures and advancements is that Mother Nature is very advanced in determining viable pregnancies and IVF procedures do not recognise this therefore increasing birth defects, women would have to have hormone treatments to produce eggs as we only produce one a month naturally (these hormone drugs increase the risks of numerous cancers) plus who would foot the expense of all these IVF cycles. IVF also has a massive failure rate.

Also what about diseases etc that require certain treatments that can be sourced from immediate family members - bone marrow etc? If no-one carries their biological children this makes finding donors much harder

[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

children from IVF would be just as adoptable, so i don't know what you are talking about.

i said, at puberty, sperm and eggs would be taken from everyone, i think i forgot to then mention that everyone would then be sterilized after that. Everyone would be sterilized in the same way we all get polio vaccines. So everyone would be adopting. It would be impossible for anyone to procreate through sex. That was probably an important detail i left out.

But yea, all people would be incapable of having children through intercourse, and everyone would have to APPLY to adopt through that government agency, and only the most qualified people would be allowed to raise the next generation of children. The WHOLE POINT being that only qualified capable parents would be raising children.

You do realise the idea behind this kind of thing was to breed the gay out of the population as well as the colour.
Alex you are a strange breed

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by bobnot

You do realise the idea behind this kind of thing was to breed the gay out of the population as well as the colour.
Alex you are a strange breed

I said that EVERYONE would be sterilized,. so OBVIOUSLY there is no discrimination! so it's nothing like the Nazi's at all. The Nazis were trying to eradicate people based on discrimination. MY system has no discrimination based on race, or religion, or ethnicity, or sexuality, or anything else. So how is it like the Nazis? It's not.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I said that EVERYONE would be sterilized,. so OBVIOUSLY there is no discrimination! so it's nothing like the Nazi's at all. The Nazis were trying to eradicate people based on discrimination. MY system has no discrimination based on race, or religion, or ethnicity, or sexuality, or anything else. So how is it like the Nazis? It's not.

Eugenics alex style a new world..
How sensible

[Jake.]

people should be able to shag and have kids, none of this lab nonsense

[lostalex]

you guys just don't see the bigger picture.