keg Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Personally, i don't care how you define yourself or your gender or your sexuality. it''s a free world and i have no right to judge or impress my views on another person but biologically you have to be female to carry a baby? How can you be a male mother? Morally, should this be paid for by the NHS or is it down to the individual. An interesting conundrum. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3716301/March-Male-Mums-Women-having-sex-changes-NHS-receiving-free-IVF-three-men-born-female-brink-having-babies.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 No it should not be paid for by the NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyn2233 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Should the tax payers pay no I don't think we should have too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philm Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 No it should not be paid for by the NHS. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 No it should not be paid for by the NHS. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Because the NHS should be there to preserve life and fix physical ailments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 "He was the first man to give birth" Um, no. He was the first woman who'd had a sexy change to a "man" and then gave birth. Why would you want to become a man then do something a man could never do ? Why? The NHS already does more than it was ever intended for and is struggling IMO. If someone chooses to become a man then surely that decision also includes not being able to do things a woman can do eg carry and give birth to a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 "He was the first man to give birth" Um, no. He was the first woman who'd had a sexy change to a "man" and then gave birth. Why would you want to become a man then do something a man could never do ? For the publicity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 For the publicity! Just makes me think they should have never "become a man" in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old'un Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Just makes me think they should have never "become a man" in the first place. Its all just part of a screwed up world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Because the NHS should be there to preserve life and fix physical ailments. Physical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Physical? What do you think about it all ? Interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 "He was the first man to give birth" Um, no. He was the first woman who'd had a sexy change to a "man" and then gave birth. Why would you want to become a man then do something a man could never do ? The NHS already does more than it was ever intended for and is struggling IMO. If someone chooses to become a man then surely that decision also includes not being able to do things a woman can do eg carry and give birth to a child. Because it's our basic human right to reproduce, you do know men have a part in having a child? Who are we to deny someone having a child? I guess I'll be dipping out of this conversation once it gets to gay couples not allowed to adopt, no doubt. What do you think about it all ? Interested. I think lots, lacking here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Because it's our basic human right to reproduce, you do know men have a part in having a child? Who are we to deny someone having a child? I guess I'll be dipping out of this conversation once it gets to gay couples not allowed to adopt, no doubt. I think lots, lacking here. I'm not disputing that. I just don't understand somebody wants to become a man , yet chooses to do something that no biologically born man can ever do. What that has to do with gay couples adopting I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 What do you think about it all ? Interested. It's offensive to think that our (my) 'free' care service should be restricted to 'physical' injuries. Let's forget the physiological ones then, diabetes maybe? How about autoimmune disorders? Hormonal imbalances? Depression? Anxiety? Psychosis? Anorexia nervosis? Schizophrenia? Body dysmorphia? Epilepsy? Motor neuron disease? Are any of these people not allowed to reproduce? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) It's offensive to think that our (my) 'free' care service should be restricted to 'physical' injuries. Let's forget the physiological ones then, diabetes maybe? How about autoimmune disorders? Hormonal imbalances? Depression? Anxiety? Psychosis? Anorexia nervosis? Schizophrenia? Body dysmorphia? Epilepsy? Motor neuron disease? Are any of these people not allowed to reproduce? I would say that all of those are illnesses.There are many people who are healthy but unable to reproduce. I think that sometimes people are just dealt a bad hand. It would be lovely to have all the resources and technology to give every person exactly what they want. Taking a realistic perspective the resources are strained and many people with illnesses often do not get the care they need. Therefore I believe that if you are unfortunate in that you can not have children, although very sad, money should be spent on giving treatment and care to people who have illnesses that are making them sick and causing pain in a physical sense. Still do not see any reason as to why someone who chooses to become a man then wishes to carry and birth a child. That quite clearly is something a woman does. Do you disagree ? Edit to add: I did not mention any of those other "people" ( I say "people" because you define them by their conditions) as not being allowed to have children. Edited July 31, 2016 by Lloyd90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol p Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 We call call those type o folks " freaks" around this here way. Ain't no law against freakism, boy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 (edited) Of course they are illnesses, my point is disease process is very diverse, physical injury is a minor part of the job. They are still female physically! Where do you think this embryo grows? If they are going through IVF they have a uterus and all surrounding structures to complete gestation. My guess is this will cost less (by millions) a year per person as the prescriptions for paracetamol or nsaids thatcost less in the coop by 700% per pack, thats if we want to get into the fiscal argument rather than (im)moral/(un)ethical. Edited July 31, 2016 by kyska Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motty Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 I don't think anyone should be able to have a sex change on the NHS, just the same as I don't believe in cosmetic surgery on the NHS. If you need these things done, cough up for them yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 its going to be sore giving birth through their willy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 I don't think anyone should be able to have a sex change on the NHS, just the same as I don't believe in cosmetic surgery on the NHS. If you need these things done, cough up for them yourself. Do you think they are symbiotic in some way? I slap my forehead sometimes with comments on here. Do you think having life long, life changing surgery, hormone replacements, stigma etc etc is the same as a boob job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 I don't think anyone should be able to have a sex change on the NHS, just the same as I don't believe in cosmetic surgery on the NHS. If you need these things done, cough up for them yourself. Don't most sex changes occur after a long period of assessment regarding the possible detrimental effect that not having the operation is likely to have on the mental well being of the person involved? I was told cosmetic surgery isn't undertaken on the NHS, unless again, there is a real possibility that not having the operation will effect the patients mental well being. A surgeon who operated on me once, told me that if I ever broke my nose ( we were discussing rugby ) I should tell my GP that I found it difficult to breath through it even if I didn't, as then it would be put right under the terms of the NHS, whereas otherwise it would be regarded as cosmetic surgery, and I would have to pay for it. Perhaps things have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 I do not believe any sex/gender changes should be done on the NHS.already people are waiting for life saving operations and drugs are denied for some conditions because of cost.i feel this is just another chapter of this screwed up society that we are becoming and will say that in one way I am glad that the greater part of my life is past and I won't be around to witness some of the craziness that is bound to come in the future.i have a son in law who lost a knee in the forces he was then invalided out after being patched up by the military. Now he cannot work has to wear morphine patches to curb the pain yet they are not prepared to do reconstructive surgery due to cost.yet we can spend countless millions because some freak wants their bits altered.and there are many such cases in this country.reconstructive surgery after an accident or illness that's fine but for reasons of sexual deviation.never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 but for reasons of sexual deviation.never Oh My God. I'm out of this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted July 31, 2016 Report Share Posted July 31, 2016 Oh My God. I'm out of this topic. You leave a topic because you have a different view to others.i see you have no views on those suffering for years because of cutbacks to NHS funds but sex changes are on your approved list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts