Women in Epping Forest could be given one less chance at starting a family as the West Essex Clinical Commissioning Group looks to cut the number of IVF cycles offered

West Essex CCG says it will now be able to offer treatment to more families

West Essex CCG says it will now be able to offer treatment to more families

First published in News
Last updated
East London and West Essex Guardian Series: Photograph of the Author by , Reporter - Waltham Forest

Couples struggling to have a baby could have the number of IVF treatments offered to them reduced by the West Essex Clinical Commissioning Group.

At present, women in Epping Forest are offered three full cycles of IVF treatment (In Vitro Fertilisation) if they are aged between 23 and 39.

However, the clinical commission group (CCG), which took over last year, is now suggesting that only two cycles will be offered after a three-year waiting period.

Women aged between 40 and 42 can have one cycle on the NHS.

The CCG claims this will mean treatment can be offered to more women.

However, the National Infertility Awareness Campaign has called for a rethink.

It has responded by arguing the reduction would fall short of the current NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) clinical guideline which recommends three cycles for eligible couples struggling to conceive.

Changes could come into effect later this year.

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:53am Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Good, there are enough unwanted parent less sprogs wanting families.
Good, there are enough unwanted parent less sprogs wanting families. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -7

10:35am Tue 6 May 14

The man who fell to Earth. says...

There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you! The man who fell to Earth.
  • Score: -8

10:44am Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'.

I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life.

This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal.

Only time will tell.
[quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'. I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life. This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal. Only time will tell. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -9

11:14am Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'.

I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life.

This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal.

Only time will tell.
For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot.

http://www.guardian-
series.co.uk/news/11
171092.Man_in_hospit
al_after_car_flips_o
utside_station/
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'. I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life. This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal. Only time will tell.[/p][/quote]For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 171092.Man_in_hospit al_after_car_flips_o utside_station/ Alan_1976
  • Score: 7

11:31am Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'.

I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life.

This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal.

Only time will tell.
For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot.

http://www.guardian-

series.co.uk/news/11

171092.Man_in_hospit

al_after_car_flips_o

utside_station/
I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it.

I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'. I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life. This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal. Only time will tell.[/p][/quote]For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 171092.Man_in_hospit al_after_car_flips_o utside_station/[/p][/quote]I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it. I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -8

11:39am Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'.

I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life.

This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal.

Only time will tell.
For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot.

http://www.guardian-


series.co.uk/news/11


171092.Man_in_hospit


al_after_car_flips_o


utside_station/
I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it.

I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves.
Nope you used it in the sentence "Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted".

I imagine IVF is unlikely to be used for two a gay couple for rather obvious biological reasons.

Referring to children of gay or lesbian parents as an "underclass" is repugnant even by your usual standards.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'. I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life. This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal. Only time will tell.[/p][/quote]For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 171092.Man_in_hospit al_after_car_flips_o utside_station/[/p][/quote]I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it. I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves.[/p][/quote]Nope you used it in the sentence "Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted". I imagine IVF is unlikely to be used for two a gay couple for rather obvious biological reasons. Referring to children of gay or lesbian parents as an "underclass" is repugnant even by your usual standards. Alan_1976
  • Score: 6

11:52am Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'.

I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life.

This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal.

Only time will tell.
For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot.

http://www.guardian-



series.co.uk/news/11



171092.Man_in_hospit



al_after_car_flips_o



utside_station/
I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it.

I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves.
Nope you used it in the sentence "Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted".

I imagine IVF is unlikely to be used for two a gay couple for rather obvious biological reasons.

Referring to children of gay or lesbian parents as an "underclass" is repugnant even by your usual standards.
The underclass I refer to to clarify, is the children created for gay parents, the children having no say in the matter.

As for the IVF, there are cases where say a lesbian couple receive donated sperm or gay men use a surrogate who receives IVF. In my opinion it is not right.

In the future I predict la suits on the scale of Thalidomide against the government.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]Trouble is gays now demand the right to 'have it all'. I predict lawsuits in the future by disgruntled kids being 'born' into an unnatural family suffering years of abuse and torment for having two mums or dads. Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted. Having achieved this they have created and invented another potentially flaw, an underclass of kids whose position in life is yet untested, whereby they could be subjected to torment and bullying throughout life. This is despite the constant attempts at social engineering to suggest that all this is perfectly natural and normal. Only time will tell.[/p][/quote]For a "non-practicing" homosexual you refer Gay individuals as "they" a lot. http://www.guardian- series.co.uk/news/11 171092.Man_in_hospit al_after_car_flips_o utside_station/[/p][/quote]I don't want any kids, they who do are not like me, I am dead against it. I use the word 'they' once referring to gays who desire children and once when referring to the children themselves.[/p][/quote]Nope you used it in the sentence "Gays have created a 'stigma' that they for years had fought against to be accepted". I imagine IVF is unlikely to be used for two a gay couple for rather obvious biological reasons. Referring to children of gay or lesbian parents as an "underclass" is repugnant even by your usual standards.[/p][/quote]The underclass I refer to to clarify, is the children created for gay parents, the children having no say in the matter. As for the IVF, there are cases where say a lesbian couple receive donated sperm or gay men use a surrogate who receives IVF. In my opinion it is not right. In the future I predict la suits on the scale of Thalidomide against the government. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -2

12:04pm Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Nice clarification. Confirming your repugnant views.

Being the child of gay parents is equivalent to serious physical disability.

"Children having no say in the matter". Children rarely have any say in the matter of who their parents are for obvious reasons.
Nice clarification. Confirming your repugnant views. Being the child of gay parents is equivalent to serious physical disability. "Children having no say in the matter". Children rarely have any say in the matter of who their parents are for obvious reasons. Alan_1976
  • Score: 5

12:13pm Tue 6 May 14

Jenny highams park says...

Since when was IVF a gay and lesbian issue only? The NHS hasn't endless funds but 3 attempts are given by most boroughs as it generally takes 3 attempts. I was lucky enough to fall with my daughter with only medication and without IVF but I can understand the desperate want for a child, many amazing people adopt but it's not for all, surly we can all be alittle kinder when talking about people going through a heart aching experience!
Since when was IVF a gay and lesbian issue only? The NHS hasn't endless funds but 3 attempts are given by most boroughs as it generally takes 3 attempts. I was lucky enough to fall with my daughter with only medication and without IVF but I can understand the desperate want for a child, many amazing people adopt but it's not for all, surly we can all be alittle kinder when talking about people going through a heart aching experience! Jenny highams park
  • Score: 11

12:41pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Nice clarification. Confirming your repugnant views.

Being the child of gay parents is equivalent to serious physical disability.

"Children having no say in the matter". Children rarely have any say in the matter of who their parents are for obvious reasons.
That is your view, maybe I am not as eloquent as you, I do not mean to cause offence.

Children do not have a say and neither did thalidomide victims, but the situation was preventable.

As I say, I foresee a situation where some children born to same sex parents will seek redress for the predicament that they were put into.

Gay marriage/ civil partnerships and adoption rights are still relatively young and there are already high profile 'tug of love' cases on the go, even one involving three lesbian mothers.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: Nice clarification. Confirming your repugnant views. Being the child of gay parents is equivalent to serious physical disability. "Children having no say in the matter". Children rarely have any say in the matter of who their parents are for obvious reasons.[/p][/quote]That is your view, maybe I am not as eloquent as you, I do not mean to cause offence. Children do not have a say and neither did thalidomide victims, but the situation was preventable. As I say, I foresee a situation where some children born to same sex parents will seek redress for the predicament that they were put into. Gay marriage/ civil partnerships and adoption rights are still relatively young and there are already high profile 'tug of love' cases on the go, even one involving three lesbian mothers. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -1

1:16pm Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed

https://www.stonewal
l.org.uk/what_we_do/
research_and_policy/
4171.asp

"The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting."

So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you. Alan_1976
  • Score: 1

3:59pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed

https://www.stonewal

l.org.uk/what_we_do/

research_and_policy/

4171.asp

"The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting."

So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion.

People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct.

I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions.

Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -4

4:15pm Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed

https://www.stonewal


l.org.uk/what_we_do/


research_and_policy/


4171.asp

"The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting."

So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion.

People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct.

I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions.

Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
Not my opinion. The result of a study.

You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.[/p][/quote]Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive. Alan_1976
  • Score: 3

5:08pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed

https://www.stonewal



l.org.uk/what_we_do/



research_and_policy/



4171.asp

"The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting."

So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion.

People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct.

I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions.

Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
Not my opinion. The result of a study.

You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.
Studies are not sacrosanct either.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.[/p][/quote]Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.[/p][/quote]Studies are not sacrosanct either. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -3

5:31pm Tue 6 May 14

stickmanny says...

Cornbeefur:

Bigot - check
Liar - check
Idiot - check
No children - phew

(unless that was a lie as well)
Cornbeefur: Bigot - check Liar - check Idiot - check No children - phew (unless that was a lie as well) stickmanny
  • Score: 2

7:40pm Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.
Studies are not sacrosanct either.
An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion.

To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.[/p][/quote]Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.[/p][/quote]Studies are not sacrosanct either.[/p][/quote]An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion. To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense Alan_1976
  • Score: 2

8:46pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.
Studies are not sacrosanct either.
An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion.

To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense
You really talk some rubbish at times and you call others bigots? Incredible. You are a self-righteous twerp.
[quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.[/p][/quote]Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.[/p][/quote]Studies are not sacrosanct either.[/p][/quote]An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion. To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense[/p][/quote]You really talk some rubbish at times and you call others bigots? Incredible. You are a self-righteous twerp. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -1

8:49pm Tue 6 May 14

Villagecranberry says...

stickmanny wrote:
Cornbeefur:

Bigot - check
Liar - check
Idiot - check
No children - phew

(unless that was a lie as well)
Sickmanny, you are an empty vessel and all you do is make a dull amount of noise-check.
[quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur: Bigot - check Liar - check Idiot - check No children - phew (unless that was a lie as well)[/p][/quote]Sickmanny, you are an empty vessel and all you do is make a dull amount of noise-check. Villagecranberry
  • Score: -2

9:12pm Tue 6 May 14

Alan_1976 says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote:
Villagecranberry wrote:
Alan_1976 wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.
In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.
Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.
Studies are not sacrosanct either.
An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion.

To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense
You really talk some rubbish at times and you call others bigots? Incredible. You are a self-righteous twerp.
Umm. I haven't used the word bigot.

I notice you haven't produced any evidence or justification. So same as normal then.

Self-righteous would involve believing my own opinions are morally perfect and my beliefs are "sacrosanct"

Support your claims with something. It isn't hard. Unless funding any evidence to support your beliefs is proving a challenge...
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Alan_1976[/bold] wrote: You cause offence because your views are offensive and ill-informed https://www.stonewal l.org.uk/what_we_do/ research_and_policy/ 4171.asp "The report found that children with gay parents like having gay parents and would not want things to change, but that sometimes they wish that other people were more accepting." So the source of the problem is not same-sex parents. The source is people like you.[/p][/quote]In your opinion. People have different opinions,yours is not, believe it or not, sacrosanct. I have a different opinion to you on this subject. I respect other opinions even if I do not agree with them, even your opinions. Sadly, this is how the world is and if everyone thought the same there would be no wars but it would be a boring world.[/p][/quote]Not my opinion. The result of a study. You are welcome to your "opinion". I respect your right to an "opinion" but I do not have to respect your opinion where it is based on no evidence and is offensive.[/p][/quote]Studies are not sacrosanct either.[/p][/quote]An evidence based study is by definition not sacrosanct as it is based on the scientific method and peer review and not the offensive evidenceless opinion. To back up your statements all you need to do is provide evidence. Without it they are just offensive nonsense[/p][/quote]You really talk some rubbish at times and you call others bigots? Incredible. You are a self-righteous twerp.[/p][/quote]Umm. I haven't used the word bigot. I notice you haven't produced any evidence or justification. So same as normal then. Self-righteous would involve believing my own opinions are morally perfect and my beliefs are "sacrosanct" Support your claims with something. It isn't hard. Unless funding any evidence to support your beliefs is proving a challenge... Alan_1976
  • Score: 7

6:18pm Wed 7 May 14

stickmanny says...

Villagecranberry wrote:
stickmanny wrote:
Cornbeefur:

Bigot - check
Liar - check
Idiot - check
No children - phew

(unless that was a lie as well)
Sickmanny, you are an empty vessel and all you do is make a dull amount of noise-check.
Careful you're replying to one of your pseudonyms again.

I guess when you lie as much as you do there's bound to be slip-ups now & then.
[quote][p][bold]Villagecranberry[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stickmanny[/bold] wrote: Cornbeefur: Bigot - check Liar - check Idiot - check No children - phew (unless that was a lie as well)[/p][/quote]Sickmanny, you are an empty vessel and all you do is make a dull amount of noise-check.[/p][/quote]Careful you're replying to one of your pseudonyms again. I guess when you lie as much as you do there's bound to be slip-ups now & then. stickmanny
  • Score: 3

9:58pm Wed 7 May 14

snacker says...

The man who fell to Earth. wrote:
There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava.
If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you!
By that argument if you have a serious illness it's natures way of saying your times up, and you're not worth treating.

People that can't have children generally have a medical problem that can sometimes be treated, or helped via IVF . Why deny them that treatment? All they want to do is bring children into the world. They've clearly thought about it. Odd that abortion has been available on the NHS for some time ( and I've no complaint about that) but the creation of life on the NHS sparks so much opposition ,sometimes bordering on bile.
[quote][p][bold]The man who fell to Earth.[/bold] wrote: There are too many people as it is, having children is not a right, it is a massive responsibility & all too often society has to pick up the tab, even for so called " middle class" families who can't afford the mortgage, Chelsea tractor, and two weeks in the Costa Brava. If you can't have children naturally, perhaps it's nature's way of saying it's not for you![/p][/quote]By that argument if you have a serious illness it's natures way of saying your times up, and you're not worth treating. People that can't have children generally have a medical problem that can sometimes be treated, or helped via IVF . Why deny them that treatment? All they want to do is bring children into the world. They've clearly thought about it. Odd that abortion has been available on the NHS for some time ( and I've no complaint about that) but the creation of life on the NHS sparks so much opposition ,sometimes bordering on bile. snacker
  • Score: 2

3:28pm Mon 12 May 14

myopinioncounts says...

One private cycle of IVF costs approx £5,000. Considering that the cost of prams, cots, other equipment, baby clothes and raising a child comes to £thousands a couple should be prepared to fund any IVF attempts other than the 2 allowed under the NHS.
One private cycle of IVF costs approx £5,000. Considering that the cost of prams, cots, other equipment, baby clothes and raising a child comes to £thousands a couple should be prepared to fund any IVF attempts other than the 2 allowed under the NHS. myopinioncounts
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree