was successfully added to your cart.

In the Name of “Equality” Anyone Can Order an In-Vitro Baby

tv-guide-gay-edited

“Motherhood is the first and last line of defense against totalitarianism. If you think this statement sounds over the top, you ought to ponder why the family has always been the ultimate target of tyrannical systems of government such as communism.”  – 

The goal of the “world order” is an AI (artificial intelligence) future in which biology is replaced by technocracy.  The step by step attack on family and natural sexual polarity began with hijacked feminism, then the orchestrated gay agenda, then the normalization of transgender, all to soften us to transhumanism, the melting of biology and technology to create super humans who are dumbed down robots.  Conservatives object to this transformation. Liberals call it “progress.”

Family loyalty between husband and wife, parent and child, grandparent and grandchild stands in the way of complete societal fragmentation, a primary goal of social engineers. Thus single moms are supported by the state, resulting in 50% of children in some cities now growing up with only one parent in the home. The family is exactly what Big Brother wants to eliminate so only Big Brother is “family.”    “One world family.”     “We are all one.”

Now to further undercut family, infertility is being redefined. The purpose is to be “fair”  to foster more “equality.” Any New Age liberal would cheer.

“In all fairness, why should only couples be called infertile? That is discrimination! If someone who is not in a relationship or is homosexual wants children, it is only fair and equal to fund their desire!”

This is the liberal transformation of common sense into utopian “freedom.”  For those who find this preposterous, it is time to make a stand.

Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of infertility 

 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/19/single-men-will-get-the-right-to-start-a-family-under-new-defini/
Man with son 
Single men and women without medical issues will be classed as “infertile” if they do not have children but want them Credit: Alamy / Juice Images 

Single men and women without medical issues will be classed as “infertile” if they do not have children but want to become a parent, the World Health Organisation is to announce.

In a move which dramatically changes the definition of infertility, the WHO will declare that it should no longer be regarded as simply a medical condition.

The authors of the new global standards said the revised definition gave every individual “the right to reproduce”.

Until now, the WHO’s definition of infertility – which it classes as a disability – has been the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sex.

Pregnant woman 
The inability to find a partner to have a baby with could be considered a disability Credit:  Katie Collins/PA

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

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

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

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

It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to  reproduce whether or not they have a partnerDr David Adamson

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

Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, said: “The definition of infertility is now written in such a way that it includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women.

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to  reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.

“It fundamentally alters who should be included in this group and who should  have access to healthcare. It sets an international legal standard.  Countries are bound by it.” 

IVF
The definition could have an impact on IVF provision Credit: Sebastian Kaulitzki/Getty

Critics last night called the decision “absurd nonsense” as they raised concerns that couples with medical infertility could lose the chance for a child if NHS authorities rewrite their rules. 

Under current NHS policies, fertility treatment is only funded for those  proven infertile, and those where fertility is unexplained but attempts at conception have failed. 

Guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) says women under the age of  42 should be offered three full cycles of IVF, with access for same-sex  couples if surrogacy or privately funded fertility treatment fails. 

But few areas achieve this, with rationing deepening across the NHS amid  financial pressures. Last month figures from the charity Fertility Fairness  showed the real provision of free IVF on the NHS is at its lowest since 2004. 

I think it’s trying to put IVF into a box that it doesn’t fit into  franklyGareth Johnson MP

The new definitions drawn up by WHO’s international committee monitoring  assisted reproductive technology will be sent to every health minister for  consideration next year. 

Gareth Johnson MP, former chair of the All Parliamentary Group on  Infertility, whose own children were born thanks to fertility treatment  said: “I’m in general a supporter of IVF. But I’ve never regarded  infertility as a disability or a disease but rather a medical matter. 

“I’m the first to say you should have more availability of IVF to infertile  couples but we need to ensure this whole subject retains credibility. 

“This definition runs the risk of undermining the work Nice and others have  done to ensure IVF treatment is made available for infertile couples when  you get definitions off the mark like this. I think it’s trying to put IVF into a box that it doesn’t fit into  frankly.”

 Jonathan Montgomery, Professor of Health Care Law at University College  London, said the health service would be forced to review its policies in  light of the new standards.

However, he said it was unlikely that the NHS would adopt the WHO standards  wholesale.  The legal expert said there could be other consequences to altering the  definition of infertility. 

In the UK, it is illegal to pay surrogates, resulting in a severe shortage  of women wanting to take on the role.  Similarly, there is a national shortage of sperm and eggs, with donors only  able to receive expenses. 

“Because wanting to have children would be defined as a disability, it  could well strengthen the case of gay couples to be allowed access to  commercial surrogates,” he said. 

“This might force the UK to think again about surrogacy.”

Josephine Quintavalle,from Comment on Reproductive Ethics said: “This  absurd nonsense is not simply re-defining infertility but completely  side-lining the biological process and significance of natural intercourse  between a man and a woman. 

“How long before babies are created and grown on request completely in the  lab?” 

A Department of Health spokesman said it would consider the WHO’s final advice when published but the NHS was under no obligation to follow it. 

The controversy broke as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine annual congress heard that the 10 millionth IVF baby would be born by the  end of 2020. 

Official figures estimate that by 2013 6.5 million had been born using the  technique since the first IVF birth in 1978. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What scientist claim….
Here is another article in reference to this possibility.
You may want to click below to see just how many women already have been born without a uterus and what has been done.
Is this, the already patented procedure, accepted by millions that are wishing to ‘raise’ a child.  We already are familiar and use the Petri Dish procedure..we have the ‘Surrogate Mother’. however, this is over and above that.  What exactly is this stating? You and your partner will be able to order your offspring and the uterus is no longer needed?

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

WP Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com