American man gives birth Watch

Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 10 years ago
#21
(Original post by Garden_Gnome)
He still has female genital organs.

I don't mean to open myself up to attack and I have great sympathy for his wife. However, as I said in my original post, it has never been a right to have a child. The reason why some couples are infertile (I know this wasn't the original case in his wife although I still feel it applies) is nature's way of controlling the population. Fertility treatment goes against this and gives people the belief they "deserve" something that no one really does.
If you want to say that, then the same can be true for any type of disease of the body. If someone comes down with cancer, well it's natures way of controlling the population so they shouldn't be allowed treatment. So if it's not everyone's right to have a child, then it's not everyone's right to have medical treatment.
0
reply
Garden_Gnome
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#22
(Original post by Edvics)
So if it's not everyone's right to have a child, then it's not everyone's right to have medical treatment.
And it's not everyones right to get medical treatment.

You cannot argue that everyone has a right to a child. It has never been an inalienable human right.
0
reply
Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 10 years ago
#23
(Original post by Garden_Gnome)
And it's not everyones right to get medical treatment.

You cannot argue that everyone has a right to a child. It has never been an inalienable human right.
I'm actually a bit surprised to see that view on medical treatment on here, especially with how much I read about the greatness of the NHS.

Personally, I am more libertarian in my beliefs and think that people are free to do with their bodies as they like. If the market makes it available for someone to have a child, and they are taking care of it through their own means, then I'm all for it. If society has to pay for them to have a child though, I don't agree, and that wasn't the case here (at least I'm pretty sure it wasn't since most states will not offer funding for in vivo)
0
reply
gm15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#24
Report 10 years ago
#24
(Original post by Formica)
She's a man in the same way that my computer is a pineapple. If they have a womb, a vagina, produce eggs and can give birth, they are not a man - no matter how much they pretend to be one. Until the equipment gets changed she is still a woman, and no amount of dressing up will change that.
Even if she has all the female organs removed after the birth I will still consider her a woman not a man.
0
reply
Ella_belle
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 10 years ago
#25
(Original post by Garden_Gnome)
And it's not everyones right to get medical treatment.

You cannot argue that everyone has a right to a child. It has never been an inalienable human right.
Although this is getting off topic, what would you call an inalienable human right? Since people die, does that mean that no one has the right to live? If by 'right' you mean basic things that it is agreed in most societies that people should be able to expect, then I would say that healthcare and having a child are two things that come under that. Whether or not people actually are able to experience either of those things doesn't remove their right to have them.

In terms of the man who just gave birth, it seemed more like a media freak show than the fulfilment of a wish to have children - I would be worried about any transgendered man who was still comfortable with having female reproductive organs and carrying a child, two things which are definitely female. I personally can't see how any doctor agreed to carry out gender realignment surgery on someone who wasn't willing to have their genitalia removed, regardless of whether or not he said that he was planning to have a child at the time.
0
reply
fatal
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 10 years ago
#26
(Original post by zeropoint)
I had to double read the gender identifiers in this article. It was most confusing.

Also I can't really understand why someone would want to become male, and then become pregnant...Oh well.

I believe people have the rigth to have children if they wish, but more importantly the children have a right to a stable upbringing, if this cannot be provided then I think people should not have children. I don't know about this case, I don't know about the domestic situation, but for now it just confuses me.

I think pregnancy is something that women are gifted with, have a "sex change" and continuing to take that for granted really annoys me
0
reply
Bateman
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#27
Report 10 years ago
#27
(Original post by Edvics)
Right, and I'm sure the thousands of pregnant teenage mothers had the children's interests in their minds when they accidentally became pregnant. Most pregnancies are accidents - since this was planned wouldn't you think that they should and would be better prepared to raise the child?
I'm not debating their parenting ability per se.

But what happens at parents evenings?
Who teaches them how to shave etc?
0
reply
gm15
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#28
Report 10 years ago
#28
I can't wait till the kid asks "mummy where did I come from?" The tanny's wife says "From your daddy's tummy"
0
reply
Garden_Gnome
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#29
(Original post by Edvics)
I'm actually a bit surprised to see that view on medical treatment on here, especially with how much I read about the greatness of the NHS.

Personally, I am more libertarian in my beliefs and think that people are free to do with their bodies as they like. If the market makes it available for someone to have a child, and they are taking care of it through their own means, then I'm all for it. If society has to pay for them to have a child though, I don't agree, and that wasn't the case here (at least I'm pretty sure it wasn't since most states will not offer funding for in vivo)
Lol, who tells you how great the NHS is? Most people in this country **** it off (often quite unfairly). It's a national obsession (even at this very moment as its celebrating its 60th birthday).

I have great respect for the NHS but I think you'll find it hard to argue that medical treatment itself was a human right. It never was traditionally, pre-NHS and, in many undeveloped nations, there's still a lack of care with other, real human rights being the priority.

It's quite a hot issue that some people in this country are being denied drugs which, although can't cure cancer, can prolong their life. You have a situation where these drugs are being denied to someone in one health authority (or country of the UK) but are available in a nearby health authority (or other country of the UK). Any attempt by those patients to argue that they have a right to this treatment has utterly failed.

The right to life (and reasonable preservation of life) may well be an inalienable rigt but you'll find it hard to argue that any medical treatment, especially when preservation of life is no concern (fertility treatment) is a right is incredibly hard to make.

I have no problem with people getting fertility treatment if the facilies exist and they will make good parents. I just have a problem with this arrogant assumption that we all have a right to children.
0
reply
Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 10 years ago
#30
(Original post by Bateman)
I'm not debating their parenting ability per se.

But what happens at parents evenings?
Who teaches them how to shave etc?
What are parents evenings? As far as shaving, that'll be taught by the father. They were originally taking bimonthly hormone injections but halted them, so I'm sure they have facial hair.

I'm more curious on why they just didn't adopt - but then again adoption laws are a pain in the US. Probably was easier to go this route, less red tape.
0
reply
Sk1lLz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 10 years ago
#31
She's not a man if she kept her reproductive organs... I thought that the sex organ determined whether you was male or female. She may look male, but in my opinion she is female.

BTW, I think that's messed up. This world is becoming more and more sickening...
0
reply
Garden_Gnome
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#32
(Original post by Ella_belle)
Although this is getting off topic, what would you call an inalienable human right? Since people die, does that mean that no one has the right to live? If by 'right' you mean basic things that it is agreed in most societies that people should be able to expect, then I would say that healthcare and having a child are two things that come under that. Whether or not people actually are able to experience either of those things doesn't remove their right to have them.
I may have answerd this in the previous post but I'll say it again. Yes I consider the right of life to be inalieanable. It is something that shouldn't be violated or taken away from a person. MEdical treatment, in the case of terminal illness, comes under this. However other forms of medical treatment, when life isn't under thread, doesn't.

I don't see how you can jump from a right to life to a right to have a child.
0
reply
Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 10 years ago
#33
(Original post by Garden_Gnome)
Lol, who tells you how great the NHS is? Most people in this country **** it off (often quite unfairly). It's a national obsession (even at this very moment as its celebrating its 60th birthday).

I have great respect for the NHS but I think you'll find it hard to argue that medical treatment itself was a human right. It never was traditionally, pre-NHS and, in many undeveloped nations, there's still a lack of care with other, real human rights being the priority.

It's quite a hot issue that some people in this country are being denied drugs which, although can't cure cancer, can prolong their life. You have a situation where these drugs are being denied to someone in one health authority (or country of the UK) but are available in a nearby health authority (or other country of the UK). Any attempt by those patients to argue that they have a right to this treatment has utterly failed.

The right to life (and reasonable preservation of life) may well be an inalienable rigt but you'll find it hard to argue that any medical treatment, especially when preservation of life is no concern (fertility treatment) is a right is incredibly hard to make.

I have no problem with people getting fertility treatment if the facilies exist and they will make good parents. I just have a problem with this arrogant assumption that we all have a right to children.
K, then we are actually in agreement! lol

I'm new to the forum, but the few threads I've come across in the few weeks that I've been here have been about how great the NHS is, specifically because it's "free" (which it isn't), and that everyone has access to it. I actually just read about the problem with the counties - some are given more funding per capita then others. This is a whole other discussion though.
0
reply
batman_
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 10 years ago
#34
this so messed up.
0
reply
Garden_Gnome
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 10 years ago
#35
(Original post by Edvics)
I'm new to the forum, but the few threads I've come across in the few weeks that I've been here have been about how great the NHS is, specifically because it's "free" (which it isn't).
It's free at the point of use. Without getting into too much of a debate it's certainly a better system than the American system. I have American friends who, as they can't get health insurance, go without important medication (this was the case in 2003/2004). Under the NHS I don't even have to pay for them, in fact I (but not most people) get all prescriptions free.

This morning, on the BBC, they were asking peoples attitiudes toward the NHS. I found it quite sad that the only person to see its value was an American (who admited how superior it is the the American system). You've obviously heard some good things about it here but my experience, as a citizen, is that most people take it for granted and can only complain about its problems.
0
reply
hupper12345
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#36
Report 10 years ago
#36
(Original post by Sincerity?)
Changing sex is going against nature, in my own idealistic opinion.
i also agree!
poor child
0
reply
Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 10 years ago
#37
(Original post by Garden_Gnome)
It's free at the point of use. Without getting into too much of a debate it's certainly a better system than the American system. I have American friends who, as they can't get health insurance, go without important medication (this was the case in 2003/2004). Under the NHS I don't even have to pay for them, in fact I (but not most people) get all prescriptions free.

This morning, on the BBC, they were asking peoples attitiudes toward the NHS. I found it quite sad that the only person to see its value was an American (who admited how superior it is the the American system). You've obviously heard some good things about it here but my experience, as a citizen, is that most people take it for granted and can only complain about its problems.
Not to take this off topic too much, but I personally haven't had a problem with the system in the US. I pay a reasonable price, I've been able to get an appointment and see almost any specialist right away, and I've never been denied any type of treatment or medication. The government has actually caused the problem in the system since they have increased the cost of care. The same exact medical procedure will cost 1/2 as much or even less in the UK, and you already hit the medication one as well. The finger gets pointed to a lot of insurance companies, but it's actually the government that is causing these problems.
0
reply
Bateman
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#38
Report 10 years ago
#38
(Original post by Edvics)
What are parents evenings? As far as shaving, that'll be taught by the father. They were originally taking bimonthly hormone injections but halted them, so I'm sure they have facial hair.

I'm more curious on why they just didn't adopt - but then again adoption laws are a pain in the US. Probably was easier to go this route, less red tape.

I'm not really talking about this particular case, but rather homosexual couples having children.

and yes, maybe shaving isn't a good example, but you get what i mean right?

And parents evenings are evenings where your mother and father come to your school to have a chat with your teachers.
0
reply
Edvics
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 10 years ago
#39
(Original post by Bateman)
I'm not really talking about this particular case, but rather homosexual couples having children.

and yes, maybe shaving isn't a good example, but you get what i mean right?

And parents evenings are evenings where your mother and father come to your school to have a chat with your teachers.
Oh, ok - parent/teacher conferences, but I think some places might call it parents night as well. Depends on the parent, but I know in the case of my family it was my mom that went since my dad was usually just getting home from work or was away at business conferences.

For homosexual couples, I really don't think it matters. Just being heterosexual doesn't make a person a good parent, and being homosexual doesn't mean that they'll be a bad parent as well.
0
reply
Bateman
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#40
Report 10 years ago
#40
(Original post by Edvics)
Oh, ok - parent/teacher conferences, but I think some places might call it parents night as well. Depends on the parent, but I know in the case of my family it was my mom that went since my dad was usually just getting home from work or was away at business conferences.

For homosexual couples, I really don't think it matters. Just being heterosexual doesn't make a person a good parent, and being homosexual doesn't mean that they'll be a bad parent as well.
I know it doesn't make them a bad parent, it's just that the child is going to get a hard time from society..
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (552)
37.81%
No - but I will (115)
7.88%
No - I don't want to (102)
6.99%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.33%

Watched Threads

View All