British Bulldog
The great escape
- Feb 6, 2006
- 10,974
I voted for yes. Seeing as I had a vasectomy on the nhs it would be a bit hypocritical of me to want to deny people the chance to have kids on the nhs as well.
There is no right to have children, only a desire to do so. Should the NHS be helping people with their desires? The short answer is no.
Surely the whole concept of evolution is that it's survival of the fttest. Those who are seedless or eggless are clearly unable to breed because they are of inherently poor stock or have some sort of genetic failing. They should therefore not be allowed to have second rate children funded by my taxes.
another debate is whether being a jaffa makes you less of a man. Maybe you could contribute to that one, as you seem unable to add anything to this one?
'wastes' money??
i happen to have two kids mate so your less than subtle attempt to wind me up wont work , its just that i know someone who went through countless ivf cycles , funded by themselves , which were ultimately unsuccessful and i know the heartache they went through, so i regard you and your post with utter contempt.another debate is whether being a jaffa makes you less of a man. Maybe you could contribute to that one, as you seem unable to add anything to this one?
Sure, you ever worked in the NHS ? I did for 5 months earlier this year.
nothing to do with looking at things logically , your post earlier on was either a poor attempt at humour or an even poorer excercise in trying to provoke debate, either way your still a complete and utter knob.and therein lies the problem with decision making on this sort of issue. Any attempt to lok at thing logically cannot happen due to the emotive nature of the subject. Many people aren't able to step back and let their head rule their hearts.
.....................I personally think that boob jobs on the NHS are an absolute farce. Whilst I can understand if there is an inherent health risk or they need to be rebuilt after surgery etc. I do not think that the state should pay for someone to have breast surgery, simply because the want bigger boobs............................
nothing to do with looking at things logically , your post earlier on was either a poor attempt at humour or an even poorer excercise in trying to provoke debate, either way your still a complete and utter knob.
My earlier post was, and remains, my opinion on this issue. I await your analysis of my view and explaining to me why it is wrong, rather than resorting to infantile name calling. Surely people born infertile are born infertile for a reason? Or do you reject nature/biology/evolution/genetic theory?
did you work with Glen Hoddle?
My earlier post was, and remains, my opinion on this issue. I await your analysis of my view and explaining to me why it is wrong, rather than resorting to infantile name calling. Surely people born infertile are born infertile for a reason? Or do you reject nature/biology/evolution/genetic theory?
thats fine, different to the stats I know of, but please link me to yours. But, as my post states "those who are born infertile" I think we can safely say that they are the group I'm referring to. Let me know if you need any further clarificationjust a quick point.......most infertile people are NOT born infertile you utter FUCKWIT.
you have no right to be treated for a broken leg from football....just a desire to be treated.
My earlier post was, and remains, my opinion on this issue. I await your analysis of my view and explaining to me why it is wrong, rather than resorting to infantile name calling. Surely people born infertile are born infertile for a reason? Or do you reject nature/biology/evolution/genetic theory?
What about Viagra?
Should that be given free too?
thats fine, different to the stats I know of, but please link me to yours. But, as my post states "those who are born infertile" I think we can safely say that they are the group I'm referring to. Let me know if you need any further clarification