being single may actually count as a disability

[alphacompton]

http://gizmodo.com/failure-to-bone-is-now-a-disability-according-to-the-w-1788103893

Being unable to find a mate, may soon count as an infertility disability. This is great new in my opinion especially for those of us who are single adults. According to the article , it will help single men and women conceive a child without finding a partner or having sex. I think that some of us ( myself included) can make great parents, much better than we might be as a spouse. I personally want to be a father but I've been single for some time with things only getting worse and I've slowly given up on the idea that I will find love and start a family naturally. I've considered adoption but what I've read is that adoption agencies will always strongly prefer a couple, making it seem a lot less likely that I can adopt someone. Now with this new classification I may be able to have a biological child. I think it will be great. What do you guys think? Do you think that maybe having a baby that you can share your love with can help you feel.... not lonely? I have a lot of love to share with no one to share it with, I like teaching and want to spend time with my kid and connect with them in ways that my parents couldn't connect with me but not everyone feels like that.

 

[EmilyFoxSeaton]

HA, funny. I am afraid it is too late or me.  It has always seemed so odd to me that they will not place kids with single people. While not optimal... it is better than nothing?

I think the real reason is that they fear pedifiles getting kids, though there is no evidence for that. 

I have considered adopting a foster child. You get paid big money for that by the state.  Just seems like a great way to really help someone who needs it. But I always worry I will be seen as weird or not be able to handle the kid. 

If single gets classified as a disability does that mean my employer can't say things like "you should settle down and get married" anymore?

 

[Jently]

HA, funny. I am afraid it is too late or me.  It has always seemed so odd to me that they will not place kids with single people. While not optimal... it is better than nothing?

I think the real reason is that they fear pedifiles getting kids, though there is no evidence for that. 

I have considered adopting a foster child. You get paid big money for that by the state.  Just seems like a great way to really help someone who needs it. But I always worry I will be seen as weird or not be able to handle the kid. 

If single gets classified as a disability does that mean my employer can't say things like "you should settle down and get married" anymore?

As I understand it, if you are looking to adopt a child you go through intense scrutiny to ensure that you are suitable so they would know that you're capable of caring for a child.

Why not go for it and bugger what your employer says anyway.

 

[VanillaCreme]

If single gets classified as a disability does that mean my employer can't say things like "you should settle down and get married" anymore?

They shouldn't be allowed to say that anyway.

Also, I think it'd be pretty sad if it were classified as a disability. I think that's taking it way too far.

 

[TheRealCallie]

Also, I think it'd be pretty sad if it were classified as a disability. I think that's taking it way too far.

Agreed.  It's ridiculous.  Being single isn't a disability at all.

 

[Wayfarer]

http://gizmodo.com/failure-to-bone-is-now-a-disability-according-to-the-w-1788103893

Being unable to find a mate, may soon count as an infertility disability. This is great new in my opinion especially for those of us who are single adults. According to the article , it will help single men and women conceive a child without finding a partner or having sex. I think that some of us ( myself included) can make great parents, much better than we might be as a spouse. I personally want to be a father but I've been single for some time with things only getting worse and I've slowly given up on the idea that I will find love and start a family naturally. I've considered adoption but what I've read is that adoption agencies will always strongly prefer a couple, making it seem a lot less likely that I can adopt someone. Now with this new classification I may be able to have a biological child. I think it will be great. What do you guys think? Do you think that maybe having a baby that you can share your love with can help you feel.... not lonely? I have a lot of love to share with no one to share it with, I like teaching and want to spend time with my kid and connect with them in ways that my parents couldn't connect with me but not everyone feels like that.

The title is misleading.
The World Health Organization, according to The Telegraph (haven't checked on other sources yet), is considering revising the definition of infertility, and may happen next year.

"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." cit.

However it is true that if they do, possibly IVF would be available for single (or gay) people, if NHS changes its policy. However:

"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..."

I do agree it means more chances for some single people that want children. And I've read your point about how hard adoption is. But I also think if this passes, it would require even more care in deciding whether the requester is suitable as a parent, in order to avoid possible abuse (we live in such a world, after all). I also think that at this point, it'd be better to focus on reforming adoption laws actually.

Personally this sounds to me like a provocation, in order to make people think about it, and I doubt it will pass. For sure it may very well end up NHS to make their definition of infertility more precise, at least if what is stated in the article, that is that they have a vague definition of it, is true.