4 ms·

> one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction ... O

> one's ability to reproduce should not be guaranteed by the state, and therefore the state should not create laws that overtly or inadvertently sanction ... Ok, but even taking the first part of that as given I don't understand why the second part follows. I don't think one's ability to go on holiday should be guaranteed by the state, either, but that doesn't mean plane travel should be illegal.

recibe 12y ago
From the article: "The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease." Reasoning: Sharon Bernardi hasn't been able to reproduce naturally without this "method". But the UK is going to make this method legal - and because its healthcare system is publicly funded the UK government (and thus the public) will also pay for the implementation of the method. This represents an example where the state is making a guarantee - a formal promise or assurance - that it will pay for citizens that normally couldn't have children to be able to have them. From the article: Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one." What's not logical about that?
- one-more-minute 12y ago
  Ok, I think the issue must be a misunderstanding of how the UK health system works, then. The NHS definitely won't fund all medical procedures just because they're legal, and whether or not it is publicly funded / guaranteed is still moot at this stage – that decision will happen entirely separately. What you're saying is equivalent to "botox shouldn't be publicly funded, therefore it shouldn't be made legal". Botox is legal in the UK, of course, but you definitely won't be able to get it on the NHS, so your "therefore" doesn't follow.

recibe 12y ago

From the article: "The method, which was developed in Newcastle, should help women like Sharon Bernardi, from Sunderland, who lost all seven of her children to mitochondrial disease." Reasoning: Sharon Bernardi hasn't been able to reproduce naturally without this "method". But the UK is going to make this method legal - and because its healthcare system is publicly funded the UK government (and thus the public) will also pay for the implementation of the method. This represents an example where the state is making a guarantee - a formal promise or assurance - that it will pay for citizens that normally couldn't have children to be able to have them. From the article: Prime Minister David Cameron said: "We're not playing god here, we're just making sure that two parents who want a healthy baby can have one." What's not logical about that?

one-more-minute 12y ago
Ok, I think the issue must be a misunderstanding of how the UK health system works, then. The NHS definitely won't fund all medical procedures just because they're legal, and whether or not it is publicly funded / guaranteed is still moot at this stage – that decision will happen entirely separately. What you're saying is equivalent to "botox shouldn't be publicly funded, therefore it shouldn't be made legal". Botox is legal in the UK, of course, but you definitely won't be able to get it on the NHS, so your "therefore" doesn't follow.