IVF bill 'discriminatory' - MGRM

Joe Xuereb

Aug 4th 2012, 22:51

@ Joe Fenech (Today, 00:14). Oh dear! Mr. Fenech is now resorting to old theories to prop up his (if one is to ignore the fact that this so-called old theory does not even make sense), what else?! his prop. The word is indeed mightier than the sword (hence 'short and sweet' is no match for the sword, especially when the word is vacuous. Mr. Fenech, I so don't do theories, especially old ones. Elsewhere you said you can live with homosexuality but that you are against them having children, getting married, or whatever. And now this little gem of an old theory. Recanting are we? With friends like these, who needs bla bla.....ħbieb, għax DAWK ifottuk mid-dinja.

On a more general note, why all this fuss about gays and IVF? Surely gays are trying to jump the final hurdle when there are prior hurdles that are now on the back-burner? And in a couple of days this article and the copious comments it generated will be relegated to history until the next onslaught by which time, any momentum gained this time round will have dissipated by then. And this is why things never change; not solely about this matter but about, say, migration to Malta in its widest sense. In spite of trillions of comments on that one, they still come. And THAT is something to fret about not a bunch of queers responding to their paternal/maternal instincts to 'hold a child in their arms' whatever its provenance. Provided it's dry and sweet-smelling.

If only they had a closer look at a great enough number of so-called regular siring/parenting of children and learn a lesson.



Elsewhere I said that I find baffling heterosexual males' dislike of homosexual men. when the homosexual is of no threat when (the heterosexual male) is contending for the female. This is seen in the rutting season, the fight-to-the-death over supremacy, and so on. But Man is not a beast I hear you say. Quite so! But his primeval instincts, wild and unstoppable are around still. No amount of prayer, promises, admonishments and morality tales are thrown at us, Mother Nature, the bitch, will not lie down and the Alpha Male in his various guises is with us still. I was sayin'.......they dislike gay men but seem more gay females, at times even stretching this to fantasies. I wonder why this is. Some even going as far as saying that lesbians exist 'because they have not met him yet'. Hilarious and pathetic at the same time. Meanwhile, let them get on with it. They could step back and see their real picture but intuitively, they know they would not like what would come up so they will not step back and take stock. Instead, they prefer to continue leading abysmal lives wreaking havoc wherever they turn. Before anyone jumps on me, I am talking of the Alpha Male and his extensions; although the non-Alpha brethren are not far behind. They are merely a bit too chicken to play the field.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 2nd 2012, 00:38

@Joseph Aquilina, whatever I said was in response to what you said so no, I was not moving away from the discussion as you put it. Lateral thinking is necessary for an intelligent, reasoned discussion that benefits even you, Aquilina. God gave me a brain to think so I am not one to give vacuous 'sweet and short' comments like someone, elsewhere, suggested I should do; in the same breath accusing me of being patronising.
I am a very moral unbeliever. Missionaries do indeed do much good as do lay people who teach catechism to children in Malta. They all do it to secure a place in heaven and from my own experience - I do not know about now - by both priests and teachers or catechism. These last were not above being sadistic, which is hardly surprising to someone as worldly as I am. Sexual repression and the resultant guild cause any number of reactions in the repressed. And if child abuse happened in Hamrun, why would it not happen in the Savannah, in deepest Africa. But fear not, those African children now adults are not likely to come forward.

@Mr. Bonnici, HIV infection was initially prevalent among homosexual men because some are notoriously promiscuous (please note that promiscuity is not a question of right or wrong; some people just are). Many infections were passed on during the long period before the existence of HIV was even known. The heterosexual rate soon caught up. But at least you do admit that, and I quote: 'My comments might give a false sense of security? Perhaps!'. Mr. Bonnici, there is no perhaps about it. By trying to sensationalise and serve your agenda in demonising homosexuality and their lifestyle(?) you did a disservice to your straightish brothers and sisters. -ish because sexual orientation is more fluid than you would like to think. We all know that people prefer to think in straight little boxes in order to feel in control and control others. They need to get a life. Which brings me to your other point. By being so shocked that someone would dare suggest that you might have mild homosexual tendencies, even suggested that they be careful what they said in future, insinuating libellous charges(?). This is proof positive of the low esteem in which you view homosexuality (it is up to you to decide where you stand on the sexual orientation spectrum, Bonnici) but keep in mind that a child of yours could be homosexual. What would you do then? Cull it? Exorcise it? Whipping it until it conforms and comes out in boils as a result (meaning, getting married just to please daddy?).

@ Joe Fenech (Yesterday, 11:54). Mr. Fenech, I did not choose my 'lifestyle' any more than you did. Now many heterosexuals, males and females, view themselves in terms of their (hetero.) orientation. Men who have brains between you know what and women who are obsessed with their sexualised image. Am I right, or am I right?! For all I know you may well be one of these guys. Now, as for you suggesting that homosexuals CHOOSE their lifestyles. Speaking for myself, I am now me, an avowed homosexuals very comfortable in his skin (in fact I am not even aware of it these days). My avowal is through open, fearless, confident declaration in public (as on here and not for the first time). But it was not always so. Time was when I lacked confidence, was assailed by guilt, was bullied and could not do anything about it so as not to aggravate the situation and draw even more negative attention to myself. I suffered in silence with not even a family to back me up. Are you aware how many teenagers take their own lives under these circumstances? And my point is, to pick up YOUR point, why? in god's name, would I choose such a lifestyle if I could freely choose a heterosexual one. Now Mr. Fenech, if you (and even Mr. Aquilina) are anything near sensitive and intelligent, you will understand this. I know I can be wordy
and it is my pleasure and privilege to be so. If people suffer from a deficient attention-span and prefer to remain in their blinkered comfort zone and scream blue murder and threaten Court
action the minute somebody mentions those terrifying three words 'latent homosexual tendencies' , then all I can say is that this is their problem to sort out. And nothing to do with me. I have done my 'life-orienteering' through sheer graft and not from dictatorial holy books. It is not my responsibility to do other people's 'life-orienteering' and they wouldn't be grateful even if I did.

Thank you guys for affording me the opportunity to so some creative writing, but factual, reasoned, sensible, agenda-free. And for the record, although I myself would not want children in an overcrowded world, indeed would not consider long-term entanglements with another male beyond a good friendship, I am not in principle against homosexuals adopting children, or siring them in whatever combination of partners. I say this because so much time is wasted on focusing of the undesirability of homosexuality when the state of heterosexual coupledom is anything but healthy. Why don't people concentrate on that? Or is this negative feeling only useful to a diversion of more painful truths nearer home? A kind of need for a scapegoat to feel better and ensure one's seat in heaven like, let's face it, missionaries and other do-gooders do all the time. I can smell them a mile away and this is why to me all this is tongue-in-cheek - albeit serious stuff. I enables me to assert and re-assert myself and for this, yet again, thank you guys.


@Henry S Pace (Yesterday 16:51). Mr. Pace, do you live and breath the Bible? Not everyone does, you know! Which begs the question; when begetting a child with your wife, do you keep a copy of said bible open at page no......on the pillow and follow the instructions therein?


@Henry S Pace (Yesterday 17:59). Mr. Pace, a child who is a homosexual in the making, was begotten by (presumably) heterosexual parents (I say this because, especially in Malta, many homosexual men get married and sire children, such is the pressure to conform). Anyhow, a homosexual child is of the family surely. This rather flies in the face of your assertion that a family is one man plus one woman. Forget god for a minute. Nature evolved in such a way that it takes a man and a woman to create a child. Yet Nature, in its weird and wonderful ways, created homosexual people among other wonders. Ill explain so bear with me. We are wired to be attracted towards the opposite sex for the sake of procreation. This of course is viewing the matter purely through the groin (genital) area. But we now also know that stirring in the groin area stir via messages through the brain, like everything else we do, think, experience. Who knows what it is that affects the brain the way it does? ie why do sexual responses (via the brain as I said) react one way one day, and rather differently the next. Meaning that sexual orientation is not a simple case of either black, or white. To give you a clear example, why is one man sexually attracted to a red-headed woman while another might go crazy every time he sees a woman with a pearl necklace when the colour of her hair does not interest him (maybe he has a peculiar relationship with his mother who once chastised him when he broke a string of pearls and has obsessed over this ever since. If you think I am joking, I recommend a search of Kraft-Ebbing. In other words, they both like women but in different ways. The sexual act might appear ordinary and banal enough but what motivates it is complex beyond belief. Simply because it is the working of that incredible mass we call the brain, and the input it has had since we opened our eyes for the very first time.
Seen in this light one concludes that the difference between the sexual orientations is practically negligible. The incidence of bisexuality is legion in all societies: just because it is not instantly evident does not mean it is not there.




@Matthew Grima (Yesterday 23:18). Mr. Grima, you sound like a devoted. I wish your family well. We are told, among so many other things, that god created man in his image. And I say unto you - we can all play this game Henry S. Pace - that it was MAN who created god in his(Man's) image. As I said we are told so many things but this last bit makes most sense to me. Call me inquisitive, call me curious; that is me and I wouldn't have it any other way.

Joe Fenech

Aug 2nd 2012, 00:14

Those frowning upon my statement that "you choose you lifestyle (alias gay)" are confirming an old theory that "homosexuality is a disorder".

C Busuttil

Aug 1st 2012, 18:19

Children are no toys for adults hetero or gay.

Gays or lesbians who want to have children are doing it because of their egoism, a child needs a father and maternal figure whatever they say. Stop the comparison with single or separated parents, as in most cases the child knows it has both parents but they only don't live together. Although this is not the ideal situation for a child its better than being deprived forever from a mother or father to satisfy the whims of some people.

Joseph Aquilina

Aug 1st 2012, 10:20

The same laws exist in other countries such as Italy and France. The concept is very simple and can't understand how MGRM (and those who just want to create a panic over nothing) cant understand such simple things. IVF is for couples who have problem conceiving the natural way. Gay couples do not have problems conceiving the natural way ... they just can't, therefore IVF is not the right tool for them.

Joe Fenech

Aug 1st 2012, 09:52

Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

I'm not denigrating gays. I'm aware of the contribution gay people have given to humanity and can assure you that in over 50 years living all round Europe my family and I have met and befriended tons of gays.

I simply don't believe in gays bringing up children simply because it is unnatural (this is unrelated to any religious indoctrination ).

That does not make me a monster, a homophobic or a bigot like some below tried to indicate. It is a defendable opinion which resonates that of a whole international community.

Otherwise, I strongly believe that the law should protects gay couples rights.

Luke Lanzon

Aug 1st 2012, 07:58

If one believes in a god in your case you clearly do, than god created gays and lesbians so I don't see how they are not natural.

C Muscat

Jul 31st 2012, 22:25

I have to add that very few including myself are mentioning the children. We are more considerate of the couple,,, and what about the chldren!?

Henry S Pace

Jul 31st 2012, 19:15

@ E Camilleri

' There again, my reply to John Borg below replies to you?
Who are you to 'dictate' what is natural? and to judge what a family is '

Its only nature that dictates such matters.

God Created a MAN and a WOMAN to form the family.

Henry S Pace

Jul 31st 2012, 17:59

' States should take all necessary measures to ensure the right to found a family, including through access to adoption or assisted procreation (including donor insemination), without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. '

The Natural says that a marriage is that between a MAN and a WOMEN'

Any other formed couple of the same sex is not a family.

Henry S Pace

Jul 31st 2012, 16:51

' IVF bill 'discriminatory' - MGRM '

We have a tendency to think that we can solve all problems with the right "technology." But children are not

engendered by technology or produced by an industry. Children should arise from an act of love between a

husband and wife, in cooperation with God. No human being can "create" the image of God. That is why we

say that human beings "procreate" with God. Engendering children is a cooperative act among husband,

wife, and God himself. Children, in the final analysis, should be begotten not made.

John Borg

Jul 31st 2012, 16:09

A family is a man and a woman and no new liberal thinking should change that. while we can accept that people can have different orientations, this does not mean that society should be swept by such currents. we have to protect the family if we want to protect society. and those preaching otherwise, that it's ok to be a gay couple and have children or to adopt are only trying to turn society upside down

Eugene Sapiano

Jul 31st 2012, 14:46

After trying one can say all conventional methods to have a child many used to tell us why don't you adopt; in fact that's what we did and we are the proud parents of a fifteen year old boy, who has been with us since he was three; but still don't think that adoption is cheap!
We did not try IVF only because we could not afford it.
As far as I know there was a parliamentary committee to study the introduction of embryo freezing, until all of a sudden a group calling itself Professionals for Life started their crusade; one must not forget that it was headed by a woman who has no less than eight children. I ask whether this group has any childless couples in it, or is it true that it is supported by the Church.

Perhaps a group consisting of couples having had children either by a donor's sperm or egg or an embryo
would come into being to challenge the IVF bill even in court if necessary, and why not adoptive parents would also be asked to join!

j dough

Jul 31st 2012, 14:35

equal rights for all!!!

being married and 'straight' does not meant than an individual would make the better parent.

i also agree that one should be free to donate ova/sperm if they should wish to do so.

Patrick Zammit

Jul 31st 2012, 14:29

When are we going to have a secular society instead of one which bends over backwards to please the whims of superstitious people?

Gerry Cowie

Jul 31st 2012, 14:22

I should clarify my point earlier - that nobody, whether straight, gay, heterosexual single, married or whatever has any automatic right to have children. To offer IVF to single people so that they can have the child they want does not make sense, regardless of their status.

Ramon Casha, again you attempt, rather foolishly, to twist what I have said. What next, Ramon? Give men ovaries because they want what women have? Not all medical treatment is appropriate for all persons.
What is your definition of morality, Ramon? Now that would warrant a long letter to the Times!

Joe Xuereb

Jul 31st 2012, 14:00

@ C. Bonnici (Today, 09:44). C. Bonnici, I don't know how you view, or how you deal with your sexuality. It is your business and your responsibility. But let me assure you, everyone's sexuality IS a political issue. Have you ever heard of feminism? Please don't tell us you haven't.

Bonnici, how do you manage to pair recession and condom use (for homosexuals)? Heterosexuals men don't need condoms for the obvious if nothing else? It sounds to me, with all these sweeping-statements, that when it comes to anything human, you are in fact, somewhat out of your depth.

@ C. Bonnici (Today, 11:30). 'You have no right to imply that a member of the public who disagrees with you, might have mild homosexual tendencies'. Bonnici, this makes it amply obvious that you disapprove of homosexuality. That homosexuality is devoid of any dignity and indeed makes one liable to libel charges if they insinuate, horror of horrors! that someone is a 'shirt-lifter'. You also sounds as if A. Spiteri's PhD. is getting your goat and never mind about HIS anger. Deal with your rages Bonnici. Your god-fearing, narrow view of what is right and what is wrong is not doing yourself any favours. Has it, could it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, you being a fully paid-up member of the homosexual fraternity, never mind 'mild tendencies' - how sweet, how terrified of the very idea - .....could it occur to you that your life would be infinitely better. With or without a PhD. I know a number of PhDs. and you know what, they are pure academics and YET, they still believe in fairy-tales.

@ James Spiteri (Today, 09:16). Nature and its function? Don't even go there son!

@ Joseph Aquilina (Today, 09:32). Mr. Aquilina, religion and respecting one another. As a person of such strong faith, I imagine that faith was shaken somewhat by recent events within the RC faith worldwide and what some priests got up to; and how the Church tried, and failed, the sweep the scandal under the carpet. You were not scandalised, Aquilina, that your dignity and faith in the Church was trampled underfoot by the very people who tell you to love they neighbour?!

@ Gerry Cowie (Today, 08:49) Mr Cowie, how can you talk about recession and the rights of people to medical care? In which case, take care and 'don't break a leg' in case you need a hip-replacement which is not forthcoming (because money is being diverted to gay causes?) and you'll go to your grave with a broken hip.

@ Louis Cutajar (Today, 09:41). So in your opinion, the whole idea about having a child is that the proud parent (the oh-so-macho daddy in particular)can say, this child is MINE and through him/her, I shall live forever. How very arrogant! Having a child is surely about caring totally about another human being, regardless of how it came about.

And last but certainly, by no means least. Why do heterosexual people, men in particular, in such disregard, often carried to extreme? What is it they feel threatened by? Seeing than Man is about control, freakishly so, as in 'this is MY woman and let no man even as much as look at her' (this is even evident in some religions)....I would have thought that the least danger for a heterosexual man would be a homosexual male; for obvious reasons. But no! the antipathy persists. Maybe, as someone here suggested, a latent mild homosexual tendency is at play here, a latency that could burst forth any moment, perhaps?! It happens. And rightly so because anyone who complacent enough to think that human sexuality is either black or white, is an ignorant (not a crime) fool and should do some reading. Of course heterosexual people feel no need to gen up on their sexuality because they live in a world that is geared to their proclivities. Not so lucky the homosexual. To come to terms and overcome his oppression, he bothers to gen up on the matter and comes out the other side all the more knowledgeable and wiser for it. It is not surprising that some of the best sexual-therapists happen to be gay. So no surprises there!

J. Debono

Jul 31st 2012, 13:50

So tell me -

how can two males or two females have a baby by IVF??

There is no sperm/ova bank in Malta.

j brincat

Jul 31st 2012, 13:32

@M Xuereb

"Maybe we should be asking a different question... Quite aside from sexuality and sexual orientation, why is it that one can donate blood, organs and just about anything, but not an egg or some sperm?"

A good question with a very easy answer.

Cause here we have the Church who (which?) still thinks that it dominates the local scene the same way as it did way back to the Inquisition era coupled by the fact that we currently have an ultra-conservative government ergo the divorce saga which suddenly (cause of the election) has put on the liberal mask!



(jb)

David Buttigieg

Jul 31st 2012, 12:42

Where exactly is the discrimination?

I'm straight and I cannot have a child with another man either.

I also can't have a child with any person I choose!

There is nothing to stop a fertile person, gay or otherwise from having children.

A gay couple do not have fertility problems, there is just no possibility of having children without a willing fertile third party, and they don't need IVF for that.

Joe Xuereb

Jul 31st 2012, 12:36

@ Robbie Williams Galea (Today, 10:09). Mister, quote: 'When one puts gay relationship on a par with heterosexual relationship one is saying that ' xejn m'hu xejn' kollox jghaddi' and that is atheist'. You make atheism sounds like the devil which of course you think it is. You could be wrong, you know! Atheism is good because it opens news vistas to some but it could be, at least initially, very unsettling to others. Certainly, it has nothing to do with 'xejn m'hu xejn'; in fact, just the opposite.


It is all too easy to talk about 'nature this' and 'unnatural that'. The whole point of Nature is to propagate and sometimes this propagation needs a bit of help (like feeding plants with plant-feeder). Propagation done, Nature is indifferent to its work. And, around the propagation of humans in particular, whatever happens after the propagation is mere social construct. This, lest we forget, includes the institution of marriage imposed as a lesser of two evils. It is for this reason that marriage will never be perfect for the people involved in it. It is pointless to hark back to the good old days when marriage was.........anything but perfect for everybody (that is the nature of the beast) and for some, less perfect than for others. Get over it!


@ C Muscat (Today, 09:42). Mother Nature?! Mistake number one. Nature is all about multiplying. From then on, Nature washes it's hands like a bad mother. So, nothing motherly about Nature. Get it?!


@ C. Bonnici (Today, 09:34). Quote: 'it is statistically correct to state that homosexuals (especially homosexual men) are more prone to HIV and AIDS. Heterosexuals have never sought to discourage free treatment of those of you who are infected (sorry if this sounds cruel, but it is a fact)'. I am not so much concerned about the cruel bit, but I am concerned, for YOUR sake, that you have got it all wrong. Bigotry and ignorance is written all over your comment. I know doctors, nurses, counsellors, etc. who work in the Special Clinic for the treatment and management of STDs who are homosexuals one and all. And they do not discriminate whom they treat, homosexual or red-neck hetero male. Bonnici, yours is a strong implication that HIV sufferers are predominantly homosexual, and male. Do you realise that this could give straight people a false sense of security - you understand what I mean, I am sure - and they would have you to thank if they get infected as a result Food for thought, Bonnici.


I believe in human rights on principle but would not automatically agree on just anything. Personally, I, as a homosexual who does not define himself by his reproductive organs or sexual drives generally, feel no urge to sire or have children by any means. The world is overpopulated and I believe (through experience) that legally-binding perpetual contracts between two people of any sort are unnatural (they are man-made social constructs, and therefore faulty by definition) are also not for me for that very reason. Again, it is my opinion that people, heterosexual or not, who allow their sexuality to define them are in error. Typical of this is the very common male who is described as having his brains between his legs. Such a view of oneself is so limiting and does nobody any favours, least of all the individual himself. At this level, it becomes superfluous to speak of heterosexual and homosexual as separate entities. We are all struggling humans and the struggle is common to all of us.

Roger Tirazona

Jul 31st 2012, 12:35

Welcome to the Catholic fundamentalist Republic of Malta, where Papal encyclicals automatically become State law.

j brincat

Jul 31st 2012, 12:15

Seems that with all this hurry so that GonziPN would be faster than Dr Muscat it is most likely that we are finishing off with a half baked cake!

All the experts in the field are saying so but then what's new?



(jb)

Joe Fenech

Jul 31st 2012, 11:54

Gays, YOU chose your lifestyle, YOU live with it! Don't expect society to adapt to you.

M Xuereb

Jul 31st 2012, 11:46

Maybe we should be asking a different question... Quite aside from sexuality and sexual orientation, why is it that one can donate blood, organs and just about anything, but not an egg or some sperm? Why is it acceptable to use someone else's heart to extend the life of another person, but not acceptable to use someone else's sperm or egg to help a woman or a couple conceive and a child come to life?

Of course, we may argue: Why try to bring a child to life this way when there are so many children waiting to be adopted? But this argument may be applied to IVF in general, irrespective of the fertility status and sexual orientation of the couple. Indeed, we may apply this argument even to the most fertile of couples: Why conceive your own children when there are so many waiting to be adopted? But of course we do not argue this way because we understand the desire of couples to bear their own children.

When we propose a law to facilitate IVF that excludes the possibility of any sperm or egg donation, we are effectively limiting treatment to some fertility problems, to the exclusion of others. We are saying "We will help you conceive a child provided that the child will carry the genes of both parents. Otherwise, try adopting." ... Even here, there seems to be an element of contradiction... "We will not help you conceive a child that will not carry the genes of both parents but we encourage you to adopt a child that will carry the genes of neither parents." Why should genes matter so much? This should be about life not about genes.

Eddy Privitera

Jul 31st 2012, 11:18

I was under the impression that for the Church authorities, babies should only be born as a result of the conjugal act . And that IVF in any form is not acceptable to the Church. Am I right or wrong ?

Joseph Grech Attard

Jul 31st 2012, 11:17

It is right for the MGRM to complain and come forward with their views. Then, whether one agrees or not, is another thing. There are homosexuals (I use this word purposely because 'gay,' most of the time, has come to mean also a way of thinking and life, besides being homosexual) who do not agree with adoption, etc by gays.
However, what is seen here, is that one cannot include same-sex couples in this law, because there is not yet a law to define the role and rights of same-sex couples. I feel this Bill has been presented before the Bill of co-habitation on purpose, to be honest!
I also feel that if one takes things 'pass wara pass,' one can arrive at something. Anger and frustration, although they are part of human nature, can, at times, make things worse. Let the Maltese citizen, especially the young ones, enjoy each new, controversial Bill (as the one on divorce) and slowly move to amend them after more LOCAL experience is accumulated.
I wish MGRM all the successes they justly ask for!
And, once again, hats off for the Bill which is given the embryo a status. This is a huge milestone! WELL DONE! God must be behind this.

PS: Religion does not come in here, although, naturally, the leaders have every right to air their views and advise their followers. The Roman Catholic Church is against ANY FORM of IVF!! For them, only copulation is the means of bearing kids!

Robbie Williams Galea

Jul 31st 2012, 11:09

These countries are so good at doing things that they have collpased in front of this economic crisis and we managed to go through with flying colours. Moreover it doesn't mean that if all the others adopted it they are right and we are wrong. Furthermore today there is a revival of religion within those academic circles that matter. That is philosophy. Philosophers even atheist philosophers are recognizing that we can't go on like this any more and so there is a need to divert our course. or else they are advocating a paradigm shift. Furthermore the new thrust towards religion in philosophy means that all the other subject will change according to the prevalent beliefs in philosophy.

ERIKA SPITERI

Jul 31st 2012, 10:56

I don't see the proposed law as discriminatory against homosexuals. It does however prohibit the involvement of third parties in the process of fertilisation, which is not the same thing. We are all adults and we all understand that if a gay couple does not mind having third parties involved in procreation , then they need not make use of expensive state resources in trying to conceive a child; there are other methods one can use, which even a person without medical expertise can perform successfully. ( although I think these are as unethical as third party donations in IVF processes). Please !!!!!!! What about the hundreds of children who are waiting for adoption , if not in Malta, in other countries? LGBT should lobby for the facilitation of adoption of these unfortunate children and not IVF!
Apart from this aspect of the law, I think the proposal for the fertilisation of only two eggs is ethical and wise.

John L Galea

Jul 31st 2012, 10:51

To MGRM I say: You are right all the way. But I remind you that not even the Heterosexuals have not agreed on it, where everyone is hooting his/her own opinion. So asking for Homosexuals to be included in the bill is too much for a country heavily infected with bigotry and hypocrisy.

Franco Attard Trevisan

Jul 31st 2012, 10:07

While I can try to understand MGRM's frustration, I think they are asking a bit too much, at least for the time being......

The way i see it, IVF is just that little extra help for a couple who have all the natural so to speak 'tools' to conceive but unfortunately need a little adjustment which comes in the form of IVF

I know that studies have shown that being raised by gay couples doesn't necessarily have negative effects on kids, but to date I still have my reserves on this. Sorry....

Robbie Williams Galea

Jul 31st 2012, 09:58

I think the church and other conservative groups should explain better their claim for heterosexual marriages being the only concept of a family. I still believe that the traditional simple concept of a family without divorce would have solved many problems and get rid of all the social and legal intricacies. It seems that man is trying to play god when he is cloning and using IVF for birth purposes. This might spiral out of control. The church should try to explain better the importance for the children of having a father and a mother beyond the obvious truth of giving birth. I understand as well that the Church will not go against anything which is natural. I think that all unnatural behaviour is against God teachings. Its obvious that gay couples cannot have natural babies and this is unnatural and so against God teachings. We will see how the arguments will develop.

Tarcisio Bonello

Jul 31st 2012, 09:52

If I'm not mistaken > 1. A Female produces an egg > so two Female would produce two eggs = correct. So there is no chance of fertilisation here. 2. A Male produces sperm > so two Males would produce just more sperm = correct. So again there is no chance of fertilisation here.

So what exactly are the Malta Gay Rights Movement saying ???

The IVF Law, Discriminatory !!!!!! or Natural ???? -
MGRM, The sky is falling - The sky is falling !!!! or Is the sky falling ???? - I don't think so.

Alan Abela-Wadge

Jul 31st 2012, 09:51

Law of nature? Natural process? or shall we say the thoughts of what society impose on us?

I believe that it is time to move on and embrace diversity. If we want to follow religious believes, why don't we follow the most simple and humble teaching of all? Love thy brother!

Gerry Cowie

Jul 31st 2012, 09:50

@Ramon Casha - Ramon, you have a strange understanding of morality.
Please remember this is about respect for the human embryo. Surely as a humanist you support human life. And as you will also know, such respect is not the sole ownership of the Church! Medical assistance is there for everybody - hence the hospital and doctors are available. Not all medical assistance is appropriate for all persons!

Mark. Galea

Jul 31st 2012, 09:48

Everyone is free to live as s/he likes, but do not expect the government to foot the bill. IVF is there for couples with a problem, and to assist nature, not to change nature.

Already laws are being discriminatory against the law abiding majority, what else one expects? Are the LGBT some sort of preferred elite?

Sarah Grech (Zebbug)

Jul 31st 2012, 09:44

IVF is for couples with fertility problems.

Period.

Jean-Michel Azzopardi

Jul 31st 2012, 09:43

why should ivf not be available to gay couples.

Louis Cutajar

Jul 31st 2012, 09:42

U d-drittijiet tat-tfal fejn qegħdin? Dawn qed ninsewhom???????

C Muscat

Jul 31st 2012, 09:42

it goes against basic human rights principles such as the right to found a family. .......
So mother nature is against human rights and principles.... let us take mother nature to court!!!!!!

MGRM reiterated that it was not the role of the state to determine who could or could not become a parent and the introduction of this act would constitute an unjustified intrusion in the private lives of individuals.

According to this and my interpretation of this is that we do not need any government anymore...hear hear!!!!

Let us all follow the rule of the jungle.. the mightiest to keep on living.... the weak to crumble!

C. Bonnici

Jul 31st 2012, 09:34

Since when is medical treatment which aims to assist NATURE, homophobic? Sorry LGBT movements, you've got absolutely no point in this one (and in many other things, by the way). If you are like everyone else, your first concern in relation to IVF should be the protection of the embryo. The right to life is stronger than the right to found a family. Or are you implying that all homosexuals would agree with IVF, without any concern for the embryo? Regarding your taxes and medical treatment, it is statistically correct to state that homosexuals (especially homosexual men) are more prone to HIV and AIDS. Heterosexuals have never sought to discourage free treatment of those of you who are infected (sorry if this sounds cruel, but it is a fact). But of course, if you argue that your taxes should challenge the forces of nature, then, perhaps heterosexuals need to reconsider their positions. The basic point is that you are still politically outnumbered, and you will remain so for a long time. Think twice before injecting society with non-sense. Evolution has always taken its time, and you have no right to use political instability to influence laws which have nothing to do with you, intrinsically, by nature.

V. Cauchi

Jul 31st 2012, 09:29

U ejja, xi ksuħat! Some people want to turn the world head over heels.

Tonio Farrugia

Jul 31st 2012, 09:25

I'm sorry MGRM... but i think you're out of your league on this one!

Joseph Aquilina

Jul 31st 2012, 09:25

MGRM, with a well publicized lie you managed to make the MALTESE LAW itself discriminatory!! and now you have the courage to come and complain because the new law gives priority to what is considered a TRADITIONAL FAMILIES! Please spare us! You want to involve a fourth person (sperm or egg donor), with all the legal consequences, just to satisfy your own personal needs!!

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120612/local/-No-proof-that-girls-assaulted-for-being-lesbian.423910

A Spiteri PhD

Jul 31st 2012, 09:23

Censu and Reinhard ... that "logic" is inaccurate. Gays can and do have children and science demonstrates that those kids are often not only well adjusted and grow up healthy but perform better on some cognitive and social tasks. they are for example more accepting than kids in heterosexual families amongst other things.

The modern family is not limited to the nuclear model. Instead it includes co-parenting between straight and gay couples or between gay and lesbian couples, single gay and single lesbians, single and couples, even families with more than just 2 people. The modern family also includes families in which a donor provides the gamete and a surrogate carries the child then a couple/single/triad etc raise the child. Again, longitudinal studies using the scientific method have shown these kids grow up psychologically healthy. A child may even have two fathers in events where an egg is fertilized by two sperms, this happens in nature but am not aware it has been done by means of ivf yet... but be sure that should the technology be available my husband and i will take advantage of it.

Society in the west is not becoming comfortable with these realities... not long ago the test tube baby was an abomination to some. we have progressed since and now society is also learning about these and other fertility options.

The local IVF bill is discriminatory and must be reviewed.

Gerry MGRMs statements are far from angry... they are in fact well informed and accurate Gerry you clearly are missing the point... it is not me, me, me... it is us, us, us... we ask for nothing but equality. This has nothing to do with the recession! and if you wish to draw lines, have at it, pick up a pen and paper but do not think for one minute that you can cross lines on glbta rights and we will stand or it.

Ramon Casha

Jul 31st 2012, 08:54

Well said MGRM. This imposition of religious beliefs through blatantly discriminatory laws is immoral and a serious breach of human rights. Couples seeking to conceive should not be forced to face any additional legal hurdles or restrictions simply because they require medical assistance.

Gerry Cowie

Jul 31st 2012, 08:49

What an angry outburst! Nobody has an absolute right to have a child just because they want one! It makes no difference what has been said in "a number of ECHR judgements". (How many?). What would be truly shameful would be not giving protection to the human embryo. What does MGRM have to say about the protection of the human embryo? What about the basic human right to life itself? Is MGRM also prepared to fight for the silent and undefended unborn child from conception? The shameful way in which many treat the unborn is what reinforces the notion of second class citizenship.
Gabi Calleja makes it sound as if all medical treatment of all kinds would be withdrawn from LGBT persons. A line has to be drawn somewhere, particularly in a time of world recession.
Sadly this has become a "me! me! me! I want, therefore I shall have" world!

Eugene Sapiano

Jul 31st 2012, 08:40

I ask LGBT why not challenge the law in court? And what about couples who are both sterile, why cannot they make use of a donor's embryo; still can the couples make use of a donor's sperm or egg?