(no subject)

[kathbad]

Quick rant on two things that are getting much more media attention than (I think) they deserve (this could have something to do with over 5 hours of Radio 4 yesterday):

1) Church is cross over £75 charge
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4785780.stm

Advert n: a public promotion of some product or service

Surely the cross is an advert - just a very well known one? It is £75, not thousands - what is the problem?


2) Woman loses frozen embryos fight
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4779876.stm

If it was the other way around and the man could no longer have kids - would there be the coverage of him not being able to use these embryos with a new partner/surrogate mother?


Actually my rant bone seems to be broken so it is a very gentle rant. Suffice to say these two things make me very cross as above!

Comments

[curlwomble.livejournal.com]

Why should a Church be given licence to crassly intrude upon the neighbourhood when other organisations are denied? Should ecclesiastical buildings be exempt from planning regulation entirely?

[curlwomble.livejournal.com]

I think if there was a court case over it, the embryos case would receive the same if not more coverage if a man were pursuing it, especially since the mother would necessarily have to be a surrogate mother, were the genetic mother to refuse permission and yet the court grant it, unless they can issue a court order for the genetic mother to be forcibly implanted and compelled to carry the fetus to term.

I'm surprised nobody has levelled criticism at the gynaecologist in charge for not having kept mature ova as well as IVF-created embryos.