Being single now classed as a disability

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/


"But the new standard suggests that the inability to find a suitable sexual partner – or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception – could be considered an equal disability.

The World Health Organisation sets global health standards and its ruling is likely to place pressure on the NHS to change its policy on who can access IVF treatment.

Legal experts said the new definition, which will be sent out to every health minister next year, may force a law change, allowing the introduction of commercial surrogacy.

However the ruling is also likely to lead to accusations that that the body has overstepped its remit by moving from its remit of health into matters of social affairs.

Under the new terms, heterosexual single men and women, and gay men and women who want to have children would be given the same priority as couples seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems. "

 

One more step in playing *.

If there is a * he is going to bring the fire and brimstone shortly.

 

Won't be long until people can order a kid on Amazon.

 

* paying for the delivery on that.

 

It would need to be at least tracked. Anything less is just cruel.

Prospective parents ordering 2nd class should be cut off.

 

Won't be Storks delivering them, it'll be drones.

 

Whilst I don't entirely agree with how this may be implemented. Why should a single men/women/gay couples be denied the right to have children? I'm sure they'd make better parents than many hetero couples

 

I thought that said Stokes and I was going to say he doesn't just deliver them... Then i remembered it was his fellow follically challenged pal who was the * hobbit and the joke died a death.

 

I actually don't disagree with you but it's the advancements being made in this area that worry me.

I see a child order service in the near future and it's not right.

 

* me I must be an utter mongo.

 

Isn't that basically adoption?

 

Aslong as we can pick a colour.

 

I'm thinking more picking a *, race, gender etc...

I think we flirt far too much with the laws of nature sometimes.

Just realised you said adoption and yes you are right. However it's the the thought of it becoming cosmetic that worries me.

 

the inability to find a sexual partner doesn't mean your disabled, it just means your ugly.

 

That's essentially what Madonna and Angelina Jolie have done.

 

Fair enough. I'm definitely against what you're referring to in "designer" babies. However, if we have the ability to potentially prevent certain illnesses and diseases we have a moral duty to do so.

 

Can you return the little *???

 

That's what I mean. Even when they started adopting they were in relationships.

The worry is that the more adoption and more importantly IVF become commonplace the more we will push the boundaries of ethics.

I really see mail order kids in the near future where fully functioning human beings are buying * and eggs to give their kids the best chance in life.

 

That is a completely different thread and one I completely agree with.

 

Naw must be more than that, as I have seen some pretty ugly * get a partner Its most likely gods way to save an innocent getting stuck with a roaster just.