If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   35 years ago today, Louise Brown, the first "test tube baby" was born. Since then in-vitro fertilization has become very common. So common that Congress is considering using your taxes to fund IVF for poor, infertile couples   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 276
    More: Followup, Louise Brown, IVF, reproductive medicine, TRICARE, fertility treatments, CEO Barbara Collura, out-of-pocket costs  
•       •       •

3276 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-25 10:29:57 AM
Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?
 
2013-07-25 10:33:23 AM
This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

www.centerforhumanreprod.com
 
2013-07-25 10:41:21 AM
People who can't afford IVF treatments doesn't equal "poor people"  subby, you sh*thead.
 
2013-07-25 10:41:56 AM
IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.
 
2013-07-25 10:46:29 AM
Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-25 10:52:39 AM
fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.
 
2013-07-25 11:02:05 AM
Eesh. We reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally could have used some Congressional funding.
 
2013-07-25 11:02:25 AM
But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?
 
2013-07-25 11:02:49 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


Infertility may be one thing we don't want to treat for the good of the human race.
 
2013-07-25 11:02:52 AM
So is the headline trolling?

DRTFA, more outraged over the autoplay video.
 
2013-07-25 11:04:09 AM

Nojimbo: So is the headline trolling?


Nah, it'd have to have Zimmerman in it somewhere.
 
2013-07-25 11:04:10 AM
This is probably way worse than spending hundreds of billions a year to bomb brown people and build planes that nobody wants.

etc.
 
2013-07-25 11:04:15 AM

vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.


While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.
 
2013-07-25 11:04:28 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


All of this.

/maybe use some of those tax dollars on, oh I dunno... birth control???
 
2013-07-25 11:04:51 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


Sounds like something Congress COULD spend tax dollars incentivizing...
 
2013-07-25 11:05:03 AM

vernonFL: couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.


Fixed.
 
2013-07-25 11:05:20 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


Being ugly is an ilness. Congress should pay for hookers for the uglo-americans
 
2013-07-25 11:05:35 AM
Something I've occasionally wondered is why infertile people would rather undergo medical treatment rather than adopting a child.
 
2013-07-25 11:05:48 AM
farm8.staticflickr.com

They're only helping poor people have children so rich people can eat them.

/EAT THE BABIES
 
2013-07-25 11:05:53 AM
Virtually all of humanity's problems could be solved by there simply being way fewer of us in existence.

/we should be funding birth control, not this
 
2013-07-25 11:06:10 AM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


Just like cancer or a heart attack.  Or being a ginger.
 
2013-07-25 11:06:21 AM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


Yes. And your marriage should be annulled, too. Because of the threat it presents to the productive marriages.
 
2013-07-25 11:06:47 AM

misanthropic1: Virtually all of humanity's problems could be solved by there simply being way fewer of us in existence.

/we should be funding birth control, not this


You're absolutely wrong.  All of humanity's problems can be solved via tax cuts.
 
2013-07-25 11:08:15 AM
Poor people should have children.
 
2013-07-25 11:08:25 AM
Having your own kid instead of adopting is substituting the single most efficacious good that a person can do for a selfish act. Having your own kid is in-and-of-itself unjustifiable. When you consider the opportunity cost, it's pretty evil.
 
2013-07-25 11:08:53 AM
Came for Octomom pics and left disappointed.
 
2013-07-25 11:09:17 AM
caffeinatedthoughts.com

Meanwhile, back at the clown car....
 
2013-07-25 11:09:20 AM
Good, I was just thinking the one thing poor people need is for more mouths to feed.  Nothing helps get you out of poverty faster then not having time to go to school or work for better work.
 
2013-07-25 11:09:24 AM

Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.


But social Darwinism yada yada!

If you're poor because you're both public school teachers maybe you should get a sprog, but if you're poor because you aren't capable of working a job above the level of dish washer maybe you shouldn't be spreading those memes, let alone genes.
 
2013-07-25 11:10:23 AM
Infertility is becoming more frequent because of the chemicals in the foods we eat, and the things in our surroundings. Men are having lower and lower sperm counts because of estrogen mimics in plastics, and from the increase in soy in all of our food.
we should be fixing those problems because they effect everyone.
 
2013-07-25 11:10:35 AM
Head Assplodes
 
2013-07-25 11:11:19 AM
People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.
 
2013-07-25 11:11:37 AM
In Canada you can get some of the costs of IVF covered if you are infertile (at least if the woman has certain conditions), but you still have to chip in a ton of your own money.

I have friends who did this, had some assistance from OHIP but still wound up paying close to $10k for IVF that didn't even end up working.

They're looking into adoption now but finding it mired in a bunch of bullshiat and extreme costs as well.
 
2013-07-25 11:11:57 AM
yeah if youre infertile.. no tax dollars should go towards fixing it.
 
2013-07-25 11:12:16 AM
What I find frightening is that we will be doing the follwing for the poor:

Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

Now if you can't concieve to receive the above last three We are going to HELP YOU GET KNOCKED UP?

Instead, let's fund them for adoption, match 'em with a kid and help pay for the EXISTING child rather than create another uneeded human being.

Unfreakingbelievable.
 
2013-07-25 11:12:25 AM

Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.


This.  Your life has to be just about picture perfect in order to successfully adopt a child in this country.
 
2013-07-25 11:13:03 AM

teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.


It should be just as difficult to have children naturally, IMHO.
 
2013-07-25 11:13:31 AM
So if you are on welfare does your state funded medical card pay for it? Once child is born does the state pay for housing, free lunches, etc for the child? If so this seems like a bad idea.
 
2013-07-25 11:14:14 AM

bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food


I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.
 
2013-07-25 11:14:16 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


You should look up the cost of adoption sometime. IVF can be cheap in comparison, and you don't have some outside group reviewing your finances,housing,pets, etc to determine if you're a "fit" parent. Some friends of mine were looking into adoption versus IVF, and it was $10k cheaper to get IVF than to adopt ($15k vs $25k). Adoption is only cheaper if you are adopting from the 3rd world, and not everyone is into super-high-risk adoptions like that, where the child could have multiple issues or the adoption agency could be very sketchy.
 
2013-07-25 11:14:19 AM
fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!
 
2013-07-25 11:14:22 AM
IVF for everyone who wants it!

Especially, the crazy 8 time mothers without any employable skill!

/ one useless person is a disgrace

Two are a lawfirm

And, three or more become a congress!
 
2013-07-25 11:14:56 AM
I'm irrationally against any kind of fertility treatments. I don't know why.  I'm not generally anti-science but I just can't support one.  A part of me is kind of "You're not meant to have children." and the other is "This is a waste of medical science." I do support access to birth control and abortion etc. So making babies nay, stopping it yea. I wouldn't want my tax dollars supporting this either.
 
2013-07-25 11:15:34 AM
My test tube baby is due in two months.  The process was incredibly hard on Mrs. Duelist, but totally worth it now.  Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Brown!
 
2013-07-25 11:15:41 AM

teenytinycornteeth: Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.

This.  Your life has to be just about picture perfect in order to successfully adopt a child in this country.


Yep. I've never been so thoroughly screened in all my life. And that was before our profile books were even allowed to go out.

Also, kiss any sort of maternity leave good-bye.
 
2013-07-25 11:15:50 AM

Nurglitch: Something I've occasionally wondered is why infertile people would rather undergo medical treatment rather than adopting a child.


For a mini-me.
 
2013-07-25 11:16:59 AM
Ever see a third world, poor as dirt farmer struggling to conceive children? Maybe evolution is telling you something, middle class white people.
 
2013-07-25 11:17:40 AM

Maggie_Luna: I'm irrationally against any kind of fertility treatments. I don't know why.  I'm not generally anti-science but I just can't support one.  A part of me is kind of "You're not meant to have children." and the other is "This is a waste of medical science." I do support access to birth control and abortion etc. So making babies nay, stopping it yea. I wouldn't want my tax dollars supporting this either.


Shoot, I didn't add the important part. Unlike the anti birth control people or whatever I'm not actively trying t stop it because you know, choice and that stuff.
 
2013-07-25 11:18:32 AM

White Rose Duelist: My test tube baby is due in two months.  The process was incredibly hard on Mrs. Duelist, but totally worth it now.  Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Brown!


God, no kidding. That many self-injections, amidst everything else... fark.
 
2013-07-25 11:18:44 AM
Media: 'Test Tude Baby'

Science: Petri Dish Baby
 
2013-07-25 11:19:03 AM
Maybe we should make adoption easier then, if it so difficult and expensive.

/adopted.
// in the 1970s.
 
2013-07-25 11:19:34 AM

GungFu: Media: 'Test Tude Baby'

Science: Petri Dish Baby



Tube, even. D'oh.
 
2013-07-25 11:20:06 AM

FarkedOver: misanthropic1: Virtually all of humanity's problems could be solved by there simply being way fewer of us in existence.

/we should be funding birth control, not this

You're absolutely wrong.  All of humanity's problems can be solved via tax cuts.


I dunno; shouldn't there be some deregulation in there somewhere, too?
 
2013-07-25 11:20:17 AM

teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.


only if you want an infant/very young child. Adopt an older child, or a child with disabilities.
 
2013-07-25 11:21:00 AM

misanthropic1: FarkedOver: misanthropic1: Virtually all of humanity's problems could be solved by there simply being way fewer of us in existence.

/we should be funding birth control, not this

You're absolutely wrong.  All of humanity's problems can be solved via tax cuts.

I dunno; shouldn't there be some deregulation in there somewhere, too?


And guns.
 
2013-07-25 11:21:25 AM
I don't have an issue with this.  However, there should be a line of fine print in the documentation somewhere that states: Any child conceived with publicly funded IFV treatments is inelligible for any publicly-funded assistance until the child reaches the age of 18.
 
2013-07-25 11:21:41 AM
sfist.com
 
2013-07-25 11:22:38 AM

Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

[www.centerforhumanreprod.com image 460x288]


Heinlein promised us:

www.paperbackfantasies.jjelmquist.com

But he also predicted prejudical derpitude against IVFs. So far, the only extreme reactions have been the moms like Kate Gossalin and Octomom, and mostly for being AWs.
 
2013-07-25 11:22:49 AM
They don't need IVF.  They need my friend Geoff.  Most fertile man alive.  Once impregnated a woman AFTER a vasectomy.  I won't let my sister drink from the same glass as him.
 
2013-07-25 11:23:04 AM

OdradekRex: I don't have an issue with this.  However, there should be a line of fine print in the documentation somewhere that states: Any child conceived with publicly funded IFV treatments is inelligible for any publicly-funded assistance until the child reaches the age of 18.


so you're looking to hurt the kid if the parents die in a car crash -- sweet idea.
 
2013-07-25 11:23:34 AM
So I see two things have happened a good many times in this thread.

1. Few people read the article about the cost of the treatments

2. Even fewer people exercised some critical thinking and reasoned out that even for a middle-class family, the IVF costs are pretty high, but that maybe, just maybe, they should receive assistance and have a child because they can support a family, but have difficulty with the upfront cost.


But yeah, this is easier.

i41.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-25 11:23:43 AM

Katie98_KT: Adopt an older child, or a child with disabilities.


Did you?

Very few people are cut out for that level of parenting.
 
2013-07-25 11:24:44 AM

fireclown: They don't need IVF.  They need my friend Geoff.  Most fertile man alive.  Once impregnated a woman AFTER a vasectomy.  I won't let my sister drink from the same glass as him.


Sounds like he didn't fully empty the chamber.
 
2013-07-25 11:25:34 AM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


Science is creating Red Sox fans. The Mother Farking Yankees are doomed.
 
2013-07-25 11:25:47 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Ever see a third world, poor as dirt farmer struggling to conceive children? Maybe evolution is telling you something, middle class white people.


Yes and they send the wife back to their mothers house and take another wife then if that wife does not get pregnant she might get smart and start doing the brother giving the husband children so it all works out.....You need to get out more! Your point is invalid. They have infertility but for different reasons.
 
2013-07-25 11:26:32 AM

delsydsoftware: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

You should look up the cost of adoption sometime. IVF can be cheap in comparison, and you don't have some outside group reviewing your finances,housing,pets, etc to determine if you're a "fit" parent. Some friends of mine were looking into adoption versus IVF, and it was $10k cheaper to get IVF than to adopt ($15k vs $25k). Adoption is only cheaper if you are adopting from the 3rd world, and not everyone is into super-high-risk adoptions like that, where the child could have multiple issues or the adoption agency could be very sketchy.


I know that adoption isn't cheap and I didn't try to imply that it was cheaper than IVF, however what about costs to keep the kid in the foster system?

Furthermore, IVF is not a sure thing. What if it doesn't take on the first $15k attempt? Do it again? That's another $15k -- maybe slightly cheaper but not by a lot. I'd bet they would run all those screening tests again, since they just knocked your bodily hormones all out of whack once -- you're not the same person you were when you started.
 
2013-07-25 11:27:17 AM
If you truly aren't meant to have children, then IVF won't work.  It's still basic conception, put a sperm in an egg, plant it in the uterus.

Our insurance allowed us four chances for a live birth and then we would have had to pay for it ourselves in full (something we couldn't afford), so had our daughter not been born on try number three, we wouldn't have a child today.  It's extremely invasive and at times uncomfortable (egg harvesting, daily shots), psychologically stressful on a humongous scale (miscarriage, failure, anxiety as you wait) and I'm not sure it should be made available on an unlimited basis to everyone who wants it, because an IVF doctor will never tell you to give up trying.  He'll take your money for the rest of time regardless of your ability to conceive.  I'd be for one round of IVF per couple covered with a deductible, then you're on your own or with your own insurance.
 
2013-07-25 11:27:49 AM
That must of been a really big test tube.
 
2013-07-25 11:28:03 AM

GungFu: Media: 'Test Tude Baby'

Science: Petri Dish Baby


I don't appreciate your 'tude....
 
2013-07-25 11:28:06 AM

meat0918: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

Sounds like something Congress COULD spend tax dollars incentivizing...


this.

I understand the need to make the process lengthy because there are crazies.

I think the process should be less expensive, especially for qualified applicants (not the crazies).
 
2013-07-25 11:28:33 AM

vernonFL: Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 850x485]


www.wikkidwebsite.com
Seriously.  Even the dystopian future chicks were supposed to be hot.
 
2013-07-25 11:28:59 AM

Geriatric Goodman Brown: God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.

Infertility may be one thing we don't want to treat for the good of the human race.


This. It's natures way of telling you not to reproduce. Then again, many of the ones who reproduce (and abundantly) probably shouldn't.
 
2013-07-25 11:29:08 AM
do it!  The infertile poor deserve to be just as miserable blessed as the infertile rich!
 
2013-07-25 11:29:26 AM

Deep Contact: That must of been a really big test tube.


www.behindthevoiceactors.com

Clearly they needed a bigger tube....
 
2013-07-25 11:30:03 AM
If poor people deserved stuff, then they would have the money to buy it themselves.
 
2013-07-25 11:30:25 AM
Let me get this straight, I get to have my tax dollars spent helping poor people have kids and then after they're born, my tax dollars can support them until they grow up (and probably beyond).
 
2013-07-25 11:32:06 AM

vernonFL: Maybe we should make adoption easier then, if it so difficult and expensive.

/adopted.
// in the 1970s.


This. The biological ability to have children has nothing to do with with parental fitness.

/also adopted in the 70s
//met my bio mom
///slashies
 
2013-07-25 11:32:55 AM

Katie98_KT: teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.

only if you want an infant/very young child. Adopt an older child, or a child with disabilities.



Catholic Charities (the one we had the most experience with) has the same requirements across the board.  The only difference is if you say you'll take an older child or one with disabilities, you'll probably get a child sooner.  If you're talking about the foster care system, that's a whole other can of worms.  I just don't have the fortitude to have a child for six months only to have the mother decide she wants another chance and then my kid is taken away.  The Baby Richard Case is enough evidence to tell me that adoption laws in my state are farked, and while we were researching adoption I heard horror stories that put me off foster care for life, which is a detriment to those poor kids who deserve a stable home life.  The system and it's current rules offers no such thing.
 
2013-07-25 11:33:07 AM
Kids cost a LOT of money to raise.

Each month put the amount you'd fork out for daycare into a savings account, at the end of your first year trying to conceive you'll have enough to pay for IVF. If you can't afford to put that money away for a year then you can't afford the cost of raising a child for the next couple of decades.
 
2013-07-25 11:33:09 AM
If they can't have kids, isn't their marraige void?
 
2013-07-25 11:35:03 AM

Devo: If they can't have kids, isn't their marraige void?


LOL
 
2013-07-25 11:35:11 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


How is it an illness? I'm actually curious...
 
2013-07-25 11:35:29 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Kids cost a LOT of money to raise.

Each month put the amount you'd fork out for daycare into a savings account, at the end of your first year trying to conceive you'll have enough to pay for IVF. If you can't afford to put that money away for a year then you can't afford the cost of raising a child for the next couple of decades.


THIS.  And I have the creepy feeling that I'd end up paying for a chunk of that kids upbringing.
 
2013-07-25 11:36:06 AM
So wait.

Abortion is bad because killing even a fertilized egg is murder.

Embryonic Stem Cell research is bad because the cells are harvested from embryos which, again, means murder.

IVF is great and should be subsidized despite the fact that it generates dozens of fertilized eggs and embryos that either fail to take or are discarded outright.

Does that about cover it?
=Smidge=
 
2013-07-25 11:36:52 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


The adoption process is intentionally difficult and expensive which favors those with more resources.  The most direct path for people without much money is to foster and then adopt, but once again if you arent someone with quite a good deal of resources your options are limited.  You will probably end up with children with emotional/physical problems because the people who can afford to be picky dont want them.  At the same time you are the people least able to financially deal with those kinds of kids.  State adoption and fostering is a mess in a lot of states.

We would kind of like to adopt but it is a daunting process.  Call me selfish but I dont want to adopt a child that has major physical/mental issues.
 
2013-07-25 11:36:58 AM
Wonder how they will feel when the first lesbian couple applies for some of that money.
 
2013-07-25 11:38:27 AM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

 
2013-07-25 11:39:03 AM

Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.


good luck supporting the kid if you are poor?
 
2013-07-25 11:39:39 AM

Eagles409: Let me get this straight, I get to have my tax dollars spent helping poor people have kids and then after they're born, my tax dollars can support them until they grow up (and probably beyond).


Sure...as long as the money comes out of the military budget. For the care and feeding, too.
 
2013-07-25 11:40:11 AM
Well I've gotta admit, it's a great way to recruit future Democrats before they are even born...
 
2013-07-25 11:40:26 AM
In the end, I don't think poor people should be "punished" by not being allowed to have children, but I also think tax dollars would be more wisely spent on reforming or making the adoption process more affordable/accessible.  The foster care system itself is just BROKEN and needs a massive rehaul.  I understand the need to give birth mothers a chance to change their minds, but I know of one child that my mother taught in a special needs school whose birth mother showed up every sixth month on the dot to block the adoption of her child by her foster parents, would take the girl back for three or four weeks and then give her up again because it was too hard.  This went one for YEARS until the child was nearly ten years old and by then she was so emotionally damaged that she was looking at years of therapy just to undo what she'd gone through.
 
2013-07-25 11:40:32 AM
The sort of people that would go to all the trouble IVF involves are likely to be good and committed parents, so this generally is not a bad thing. The sort of amount of times it is done is irrelevant on the scale of the populations of entire countries, so the argument about needing to be less humans is a pretty weak argument against it. Adoption is great, and should be encouraged, but isn't an option for most people as it tends to be far more time consuming, expensive and risky than options like IVF.
 
2013-07-25 11:41:29 AM

Geriatric Goodman Brown: God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.

Infertility may be one thing we don't want to treat for the good of the human race.


Malgenics!
 
2013-07-25 11:42:21 AM

fonebone77: The adoption process is intentionally difficult and expensive which favors those with more resources.


And IVF isn't?

fonebone77: The most direct path for people without much money is to foster and then adopt, but once again if you arent someone with quite a good deal of resources your options are limited.  You will probably end up with children with emotional/physical problems because the people who can afford to be picky dont want them.  At the same time you are the people least able to financially deal with those kinds of kids.  State adoption and fostering is a mess in a lot of states.

We would kind of like to adopt but it is a daunting process.  Call me selfish but I dont want to adopt a child that has major physical/mental issues.


Is your option a high risk pregnancy that requires serious medical intervention just to get things started in the first place? What are the odds of an IVF baby having major physical/mental issues?
 
2013-07-25 11:42:58 AM

fireclown: The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: Kids cost a LOT of money to raise.

Each month put the amount you'd fork out for daycare into a savings account, at the end of your first year trying to conceive you'll have enough to pay for IVF. If you can't afford to put that money away for a year then you can't afford the cost of raising a child for the next couple of decades.

THIS.  And I have the creepy feeling that I'd end up paying for a chunk of that kids upbringing.


Golly that's an awfully big assumption.  My child was born through insurance covered IVF and we're paying for her upbringing just fine.  Just because people don't happen to have $20,000 in available assets on hand to pay for fertility treatments doesn't automatically mean they don't have enough money to raise a child.
 
2013-07-25 11:43:13 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?



You don't know much about adoption.  It is much harder to adopt than you think.
 
2013-07-25 11:46:09 AM
Over populated planet and idiot still want to bring as many new people into this world.

It' got to be for the Soylent Green.
 
2013-07-25 11:46:28 AM
Sorry, meant to comment that your kiddo's cute as all get out! That shot of him being held by the pretty girl (sister? mother?) looks as though it should be on the wall of a family portrait studio. Lovely. :)
 
2013-07-25 11:46:57 AM
And retards should get into Harvard
 
2013-07-25 11:47:12 AM

Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

[www.centerforhumanreprod.com image 460x288]


She's British.  You expected pretty?
 
2013-07-25 11:47:23 AM

Stoker: Over populated planet and idiot still want to bring as many new people into this world.

It' got to be for the Soylent Green.

-=-
Ooops, for got the s. --> Idiots. (Plural)
 
2013-07-25 11:47:35 AM

Donnchadha: fonebone77: The adoption process is intentionally difficult and expensive which favors those with more resources.

And IVF isn't?

fonebone77: The most direct path for people without much money is to foster and then adopt, but once again if you arent someone with quite a good deal of resources your options are limited.  You will probably end up with children with emotional/physical problems because the people who can afford to be picky dont want them.  At the same time you are the people least able to financially deal with those kinds of kids.  State adoption and fostering is a mess in a lot of states.

We would kind of like to adopt but it is a daunting process.  Call me selfish but I dont want to adopt a child that has major physical/mental issues.

Is your option a high risk pregnancy that requires serious medical intervention just to get things started in the first place? What are the odds of an IVF baby having major physical/mental issues?


I don't know if you're being snarky or genuinely asking, but the risk is generally low unless the birth parents know they carry genetic issues ahead of time and decide to take that risk. In general, the greatest risk is preterm birth and low birth rates because often IVF results in twinning or triplets because multiple embryos are planted and multiples are generally not carried to term.
 
2013-07-25 11:48:22 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.
 
2013-07-25 11:48:27 AM
If the argument that poor couples are too poor to adopt and care for a child, then why would we trust them with their own if we can't trust them with another's? Also, reading a recent article on how it is pretty much impossible to rise above the class you were born into, wouldn't this doom future generations to poverty?

/not serious, but points have been raised
 
2013-07-25 11:49:25 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


How is it an illness? It has no negative health effects. Obesity is much more negative on health but we don't pay for lipo. Self esteem issues can lead to bad health, we don't pay for boob jobs.

At some point there needs to be a rational discussion on cost vs benefit. In this case adoption is more beneficial in costs.
 
2013-07-25 11:49:28 AM

abfalter: You don't know much about adoption.  It is much harder to adopt than you think.


You don't just comparison shop at Best Boy and then buy a kid from the Amazon?
 
2013-07-25 11:50:53 AM
Apparently the only thing Congress won't fund is you and me and I'll bet you're filing out a Grant Proposal right now ...

OTOH
 
2013-07-25 11:56:05 AM

fonebone77: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

The adoption process is intentionally difficult and expensive which favors those with more resources.  The most direct path for people without much money is to foster and then adopt, but once again if you arent someone with quite a good deal of resources your options are limited.  You will probably end up with children with emotional/physical problems because the people who can afford to be picky dont want them.  At the same time you are the people least able to financially deal with those kinds of kids.  State adoption and fostering is a mess in a lot of states.

We would kind of like to adopt but it is a daunting process.  Call me selfish but I dont want to adopt a child that has major physical/mental issues.


No offense but your bio child could have a major physical/mental illness & I suspect you would love & care for them. I know there is a bit of a difference in that you know for sure when adopting vs not knowing when having your own but in the end, having your own doesn't protect you from that.

//Hey, how about $ for IVF goes instead to support parents who adopt children with special needs?
 
2013-07-25 11:56:14 AM

Stoker: Over populated planet and idiot still want to bring as many new people into this world.

It' got to be for the Soylent Green.


You've already had your vasectomy, right?
 
2013-07-25 11:56:15 AM

Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?


It's a two-pronged problem.

Adopting kids is a long, paper-work-intensive, expensive process which should be made a lot easier, and which often leaves prospective parents at the mercy of a religiously affiliated adoption agency (until recently, it was almost as hard for an atheist couple to adopt as a gay couple. Hey, I said almost.) The trouble and expense is even higher if you're adopting a domestically sourced kid, vs. adopting from Africa or Asia. And the cute factor means anybody with pubic hair is functionally unadoptable. (There are heartwarming exceptions to the rule, but... yeah.)

Then there's the flipside. Despite all the roadblocks we put in the way of decent folks who want to offer homes to kids, we end up handing an unacceptably non-zero number of the poor rugrats to total assholes and abusive would-be parents. (Because you can basically buy a child.)

It's all farked up. If it were up to me, there'd be no adoption fee, but there'd be background checks out the wazoo, psychiatric evals for the parents, and case workers would be coming to your house to check up on you every time you turned around.

For the record, I know a few people who have adopted. Mostly they're completely normal, wonderful people. Except for that one lady who's adopted as many kids as the rest of them combined. She's not beating them, just training them to be in God's Army when the End Of Days is upon us. Apparently that's allowed.
 
2013-07-25 11:56:18 AM
People who argue in favor of something with reasoning that alternative choices have negatives should have their head examined.

Fix the alternatives if they need fixing... regardless, it's logically not an argument in favor of the other thing

/make it easier to adopt domestic orphans
//make it harder to adopt foreign orphans
///regardless, low income people don't need help breeding, we have enough people doing that for free and getting on welfare and other income assistance  programs
 
2013-07-25 11:56:30 AM

zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.


Ok, and are you ok with the government paying for the sometimes $20,000 it costs to adopt?
 
2013-07-25 11:57:03 AM

Mawson of the Antarctic: If the argument that poor couples are too poor to adopt and care for a child, then why would we trust them with their own if we can't trust them with another's? Also, reading a recent article on how it is pretty much impossible to rise above the class you were born into, wouldn't this doom future generations to poverty?

/not serious, but points have been raised


Because food stamps and welfare put more money into the economy then it takes from tax payers....duh.

foodstamps have a better return than jobs do.
 
2013-07-25 11:57:40 AM

zabadu: Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

[www.centerforhumanreprod.com image 460x288]

She's British.  You expected pretty?


I thought I had read a news piece a few years back indicating she was pursuing a modeling career. Can't find pics though.

18 and modeling vs. 35 and been married for 10 years is, well, a whole other ballgame.
 
2013-07-25 12:00:20 PM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


You'd think.  But it turns out even people who refuse birth control for "we leave it up to God how many 'blessings' we have" reasons are willing to go out all for IVF, which seems a bit contradictory.

Meanwhile, the paralyzed guy from TFA who seems to have "low sperm count" as his only issue, and no (mentioned) issues with his wife, I'm surprised they don't try the turkey baster method?  Or an enhanced version of essentially the turkey baster method? Like making sure to harvest viable sperm only, out of the sum total of... production, and injecting those? If the problem is just making sure whatever sperm he produces gets to her during fertile periods...

I guess if he produces so few that they want to have the eggs waiting there in the tube and be absolutely SURE they "take" then IVF would be the way to go, but... just seems there's cheaper things out there to try (though maybe they have already and TFA just didn't mention it).
 
2013-07-25 12:00:24 PM
There are 15 states that have IVF coverage mandates. There are 27 that mandate Viagra coverage.

Just saying.

I've long said that this is what will break states trying to pass "personhood at conception" laws. You do not want to block a couple that wants to have kids with a flimsy moralistic argument.

I've had some co-workers who went through IVF. It's heartbreaking just to see as an outsider, the rollercoaster of hope and letdown. And social conservatives can't even play the "Well, they're just sluts with poor impulse control" that they use so often with contraception debates.
 
2013-07-25 12:01:21 PM
vilagvaltozik.sfblogs.net
 
2013-07-25 12:01:48 PM

Giltric: Mawson of the Antarctic: If the argument that poor couples are too poor to adopt and care for a child, then why would we trust them with their own if we can't trust them with another's? Also, reading a recent article on how it is pretty much impossible to rise above the class you were born into, wouldn't this doom future generations to poverty?

/not serious, but points have been raised

Because food stamps and welfare put more money into the economy then it takes from tax payers....duh.

foodstamps have a better return than jobs do.


Actually, in terms of total economic activity, that is correct.

i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-25 12:03:12 PM

Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

[www.centerforhumanreprod.com image 460x288]


I had no idea that Chris Farley was a test tube baby.
 
2013-07-25 12:03:27 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Donnchadha: fonebone77: The adoption process is intentionally difficult and expensive which favors those with more resources.

And IVF isn't?

fonebone77: The most direct path for people without much money is to foster and then adopt, but once again if you arent someone with quite a good deal of resources your options are limited.  You will probably end up with children with emotional/physical problems because the people who can afford to be picky dont want them.  At the same time you are the people least able to financially deal with those kinds of kids.  State adoption and fostering is a mess in a lot of states.

We would kind of like to adopt but it is a daunting process.  Call me selfish but I dont want to adopt a child that has major physical/mental issues.

Is your option a high risk pregnancy that requires serious medical intervention just to get things started in the first place? What are the odds of an IVF baby having major physical/mental issues?

I don't know if you're being snarky or genuinely asking, but the risk is generally low unless the birth parents know they carry genetic issues ahead of time and decide to take that risk. In general, the greatest risk is preterm birth and low birth rates because often IVF results in twinning or triplets because multiple embryos are planted and multiples are generally not carried to term.


If the birth parents know of a genetic issue they can always go for donor eggs or donor sperm, or both.

A cow-orker of mine adopted a baby from Oklahoma (she lives in Maryland).  She and her husband paid through the nose for the adoption, raised the baby for a year and then the birth mother got her shiat together, sued for custody and won.  biatch,  So they saved some more money and did IVF with donor eggs (I think).  Regardless of who the genetic parents are, the birth mother gets her name on the birth certificate and has a huge advantage in the court system on custody.
 
2013-07-25 12:04:46 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


You sound barren.
 
2013-07-25 12:07:16 PM

itazurakko: FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?

You'd think.  But it turns out even people who refuse birth control for "we leave it up to God how many 'blessings' we have" reasons are willing to go out all for IVF, which seems a bit contradictory.

Meanwhile, the paralyzed guy from TFA who seems to have "low sperm count" as his only issue, and no (mentioned) issues with his wife, I'm surprised they don't try the turkey baster method?  Or an enhanced version of essentially the turkey baster method? Like making sure to harvest viable sperm only, out of the sum total of... production, and injecting those? If the problem is just making sure whatever sperm he produces gets to her during fertile periods...

I guess if he produces so few that they want to have the eggs waiting there in the tube and be absolutely SURE they "take" then IVF would be the way to go, but... just seems there's cheaper things out there to try (though maybe they have already and TFA just didn't mention it).


Of course there are other methods but they also cost money.  Our issue was low sperm count as well, and what you're describing is basically IVF.  My eggs were harvested and his healthy sperm were harvested and they were put together and put back in my uterus.  Artificial Insemination is often the first thing people try before IVF, but I also know of people who skipped right over it because of it's much lower success rate.
 
2013-07-25 12:08:09 PM
How about instead of everyone shiatting on everyone else, we all try to push to have the farked up foster care system reworked to something that isn't out of a Roald Dahl story, and the adoption services and agencies provided some additional support for helping to get kids that aren't 6 weeks old, white with blue eyes adopted to families? Yes, the system is farked up. There are people who really want their own kids, people who are willing to adopt any kid, but when the system to facilitate these things is unattainably costly and punitive in various ways, it's not the people trying to participate, it's the farked up rules that make them dance in circles.
 
2013-07-25 12:09:23 PM

dv-ous: Giltric: Because food stamps and welfare put more money into the economy then it takes from tax payers....duh.
foodstamps have a better return than jobs do.

Actually, in terms of total economic activity, that is correct.


Economic activity != generation of new money or "return"
 
2013-07-25 12:10:08 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Infertility is becoming more frequent because of the chemicals in the foods we eat, and the things in our surroundings. Men are having lower and lower sperm counts because of estrogen mimics in plastics, and from the increase in soy in all of our food.
we should be fixing those problems because they effect everyone.


I'm with you on the "thousands of chemicals we don't fully understand" line, but SOY causing problems with fertility?  A billion people in China would beg to differ.
 
2013-07-25 12:10:43 PM

StaleCoffee: How about instead of everyone shiatting on everyone else, we all try to push to have the farked up foster care system reworked to something that isn't out of a Roald Dahl story, and the adoption services and agencies provided some additional support for helping to get kids that aren't 6 weeks old, white with blue eyes adopted to families? Yes, the system is farked up. There are people who really want their own kids, people who are willing to adopt any kid, but when the system to facilitate these things is unattainably costly and punitive in various ways, it's not the people trying to participate, it's the farked up rules that make them dance in circles.


Very much this.
 
2013-07-25 12:12:14 PM

teenytinycornteeth: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Ok, and are you ok with the government paying for the sometimes $20,000 it costs to adopt?


Do you understand the concept of population growth and Sunk Costs?

I would MUCH rather that if MY tax dollars were to be spent on this issue that it be spent supporting adotption by infertile couples, reducing the number of kids in foster care, etc.  This makes sense, not adding MORE bodies to a planet that is in zero danger of humans going extinct because we don't have 40 or 50K MORE kids a year.

Your genes - they are not that special - get over your snowflakeness.

/adopted myself
//never met birth parents
///have the bills on what I cost.
 
2013-07-25 12:12:48 PM
Hey Trollmitter/dumbfarkers - did you read the whole article? It's for VETERANS. The proposed funding is for the VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.
 
2013-07-25 12:14:31 PM

abfalter: You don't know much about adoption. It is much harder to adopt than you think.


Sooo much this.  Wife and I have been trying to adopt and/or foster for years now, and we seem to be hitting brick walls at every turn.  Most recently, a friend of a friend hooked us up with a girl who wanted to do a private adoption (just her, us, and a lawyer, no agencies involved), only to change her mind halfway through.  Absolutely devastating.

Anybody out there want to help a Farker out?  We're still very much "in the market", so to speak.

/EIP
 
2013-07-25 12:14:38 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby. Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


Sorry but evolution decided your gene path was finished
 
2013-07-25 12:15:15 PM

bmwericus: teenytinycornteeth: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Ok, and are you ok with the government paying for the sometimes $20,000 it costs to adopt?

Do you understand the concept of population growth and Sunk Costs?

I would MUCH rather that if MY tax dollars were to be spent on this issue that it be spent supporting adotption by infertile couples, reducing the number of kids in foster care, etc.  This makes sense, not adding MORE bodies to a planet that is in zero danger of humans going extinct because we don't have 40 or 50K MORE kids a year.

Your genes - they are not that special - get over your snowflakeness.

/adopted myself
//never met birth parents
///have the bills on what I cost.


I don't know what you're angry with me about.  Like I said above, I would rather tax dollars go to overhauling the adoption and foster care system, but people who waltz in here saying "just adopt" like it's as easy as walking into target and picking up a baby are sorely missing the high cost and extreme work that goes into it.  I had no issue wiht not having a kid with my own genes and I would have happily adopted, but the upfront costs were more than the upfront costs of IVF and there was absolutely no guarantee we would have ended up with a child (I understand there's no guarantee with IVF either, but we decided to go that route)
 
2013-07-25 12:15:34 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.


Poor.  Goes to food banks.  Total Fark account.  Posting in the middle of a workday.
 
2013-07-25 12:16:18 PM

teenytinycornteeth: Of course there are other methods but they also cost money.


Ah. I would have naively thought maybe the cost difference was enough (childfree, here, so I only ever read about this stuff in the news, and most the news is about implanting "already combined" embryos for various reasons).  Interesting.

dj245: I'm with you on the "thousands of chemicals we don't fully understand" line, but SOY causing problems with fertility?  A billion people in China would beg to differ.


Hell, most of Asia for that matter.  I'm kinda amused at some of the "oh but that's got soy in it!" new food-pickiness that's gaining steam in the US, because yeah, Asia, anyone?  People been eating soy forever, it's not a special health food and it's not a diet food and it's not some weird new additive in food.

Countries with low birth rate issues right now, it's not about physical fertility.
 
2013-07-25 12:16:44 PM

roddack: God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby. Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.

Sorry but evolution decided your gene path was finished


Sorry, but evolution has made humans capable of treating their infertility.
 
2013-07-25 12:16:58 PM

teylix: yeah if youre infertile.. no tax dollars should go towards fixing it.


I have to agree.

I was told at the tender age of 23 that my odds of conceiving were good, but carrying to term was chancy at best (bed rest, complications, etc). I certainly didn't have the money and didn't figure that the government would pay so, I never got to be a biological mom.  Nor did the government cough up a single dime for either of my 2 IUDs, which I had placed so that I wouldn't end up pregnant, in the ER miscarrying.  My decision and paid for with my money.

I will say that being a stepmom (aka, the Wicked Step Mother, cackling) is the most rewarding and difficult thing I've ever tried to do with my life.  Love the kid with all my heart and soul, and with as much as we have in common, it's surprising that I'm not his biological mom.  Have a good friend around my age, late 30s, who wants to be a foster parent.  She's been shot down due to the fact that she's single.  Oh, the horror or a child in need of a foster home living with a single woman!!  Adoption and foster parenting are both so difficult to do in this country, I can see why many goodhearted people don't even bother.  However, IMHO, that doesn't mean that the government should help an infertile woman get pregnant.  Instead, perhaps we can look at using some of that time, money and effort into reforming adoption/foster parenting regulations so more kids in this nation get good homes that they deserve.

There are so many great kids out there in need of foster homes and adoption.  Honestly, if I hadn't come along my stepson would've been fine, his dad is great and that's why he has legal custody, but there are of course the times where I have to ask the kid, are you really going to eat/wear/do that?  Usually he sees reason :)

/owned by a 14 yr old
 
2013-07-25 12:17:45 PM

Katie98_KT: teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.

only if you want an infant/very young child. Adopt an older child, or a child with disabilities.


Very few people have the strength of character or the non-selfish social concern to adopt someone else's "broken" child.
 
2013-07-25 12:18:21 PM

Lord Schtupp: Hey Trollmitter/dumbfarkers - did you read the whole article? It's for VETERANS. The proposed funding is for the VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.


...so? I'm all for taking care of our soldiers, but if their infertility isn't a result of their military service, this is a rare instance where I'm unmoved.

Although given the combination of an all-volunteer military and the tendency of soldiers to come from families with traditions of military service, there may be another reason to ensure that veterans reproduce.
 
2013-07-25 12:19:09 PM
from article

Two bills are currently pending in Congress to bridge the gap for couples who cannot afford the price of IVF. One would allow couples a tax credit, much like the adoption credit for out-of-pocket costs.
A second bill would require the VA to provide IVF and adoption assistance to those whose wounds have rendered them infertile.

anyone see who is sponsoring the bill?
(and perhaps who their big donors are)
 
2013-07-25 12:19:25 PM
Because as I'm stuck in traffic on my commute I often find myself thinking, "If only there were a way to make even more people."
 
2013-07-25 12:20:10 PM
If you can't afford IVF, how can you afford to raise a kid?

\put birth control into the water supply and dole out antidote to people who qualify for a license to reproduce...
 
2013-07-25 12:20:39 PM

halB: The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.

Poor.  Goes to food banks.  Total Fark account.  Posting in the middle of a workday.


What % of Farkers work second, third, or swing shifts, I wonder?
 
2013-07-25 12:23:17 PM
Maybe look at reducing the cost of IVF instead. Something that's been going on for 35 years ought be be fairly standard. Stop paying the medical profession so much money whether it's yours or getting some 3rd party to chip in for you.
 
2013-07-25 12:24:31 PM
Geriatric Goodman Brown: "Infertility may be one thing we don't want to treat for the good of the human race."

Only wealthy countries can afford it. Wealthy countries are trending toward birth-rates below the replacement rate.
For the good of the human race, we may very well need to be sure that everyone who actually wants children can have children.

Sure, we should err toward adoption first.
But those orphanages aren't full of children from middle class families.
As the world continues to become wealthier (and hope against hope that *actual* sex education becomes the norm), your orphan population will drop.
So that's not necessarily going to *always* be an option.
 
2013-07-25 12:26:01 PM
Really? No thank you.
 
2013-07-25 12:26:09 PM

FarkedOver: misanthropic1: Virtually all of humanity's problems could be solved by there simply being way fewer of us in existence.

/we should be funding birth control, not this

You're absolutely wrong.  All of humanity's problems can be solved via tax cuts increases on the 1%.



/FTFY
 
2013-07-25 12:26:13 PM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


If I had an in-vitro son he'd look just like that
 
2013-07-25 12:26:19 PM

dv-ous: Lord Schtupp: Hey Trollmitter/dumbfarkers - did you read the whole article? It's for VETERANS. The proposed funding is for the VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.

...so? I'm all for taking care of our soldiers, but if their infertility isn't a result of their military service, this is a rare instance where I'm unmoved.

Although given the combination of an all-volunteer military and the tendency of soldiers to come from families with traditions of military service, there may be another reason to ensure that veterans reproduce.


I'm a vet myself and I agree with you. Trollmitter's headline would have you believe that it's for the population in general.
 
2013-07-25 12:26:22 PM

Lord Schtupp: Hey Trollmitter/dumbfarkers - did you read the whole article? It's for VETERANS. The proposed funding is for the VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.


So the parents will almost definitely be poor and there's a high risk of PTSD-induced depression to add to the fun
 
2013-07-25 12:28:00 PM

LZeitgeist: If you can't afford IVF, how can you afford to raise a kid?

\put birth control into the water supply and dole out antidote to people who qualify for a license to reproduce...


Omg the ol' license to reproduce idea...no one has ever brought that into the discussion before!

Do you really not see a difference between writing out a check for twelve thousand dollars in one day and paying for a child bit by bit over the course of its life?
 
2013-07-25 12:28:07 PM

teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.


So its a myth that there are all these children sitting around as wards of the state waiting to be adopted?


In my perfect world, every girl at age 13 would be given the opportunity to get an IUD implanted and receive $5000 (available upon their 18th birthday) for it. They can get it removed any time they want after their 21st birthday. For $5000.
 
2013-07-25 12:29:21 PM
The cost of adoption needs to be reduced or perhaps even subsidized.  I have no idea how adoption costs as much as it does.  My neighbors spent a fortune adopting their child.  Unless you physically can't, there's no incentive for adoption vs popping out your own.
 
2013-07-25 12:31:04 PM
And as an aside to my previous-kid was flunking out of school, getting into fights, getting suspended, etc, etc until I came along.  Now he's starting a college preparatory school which will give him the equivalent of an Associate's Degree when he graduates-I am unbelievably proud of him.  It certainly was a joint effort, but having someone stable in his life to kinda try to help him out really did work and between his Dad and I, we got things going.  Why can't we concentrate on that with adoption/foster parenting?  I'd pay more in my taxes if I knew that a greater portion was going towards fixing what I think is a bad and broken system, not to mention, opportunistic, based on some other posts (high cost of adoption)

I paid a much higher price than simple dollars and cents when I signed up for this gig, and as much as it exhausts me at times, I would be a foster parent in a heartbeat if the system weren't so darned moribund.  Any adoptive or foster parent would probably say the same-it's not a cash up front deal, but a life long investment that you pay for over and over again, very willingly.
 
2013-07-25 12:33:19 PM
www.centerforhumanreprod.com

i11.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-25 12:34:50 PM
LZeitgeist:

If you can't afford IVF, how can you afford to raise a kid?

IVF costs about $10k+ per cycle, and often takes multiple cycles. It can cost more to conceive a kid than the first few years of raising them. to

Your argument would be equally valid if you were asking why we should cover pre-natal care or obstetrics.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:02 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


It's an illness that many women could avoid by not waiting until they're 46 to start having a family. (If you haven't had kids by then, you're probably not mother material anyway. )
 
2013-07-25 12:36:25 PM

Giltric: Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.

good luck supporting the kid if you are poor?


That's the taxpayer's job!

Seriously, we should NOT be using public funds to pay for people's fertility treatments. IVF costs, from what I've seen and heard, are in the neighborhood of $10-$15k. Raising a child to adulthood costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $100k. If you can't afford to save up $10k over 2 or 3 years to pay for your own treatment, what are the odds that you can afford to raise that child on your own without assistance? So now the taxpayers should be on the hook for making the baby AND feeding it? I don't think so. If you DO have the means to support the child, then you have the means to save up enough money for the treatment. I realize you may spend a few years saving money only to have the treatment not work, but I don't see how that should be MY problem. If you don't want it badly enough to make the sacrafice and take the risk, why the hell should the taxpayers? If you are not willing to invest in yourself, I'm not willing to do it for you. Maybe a better focus would be fixing our broken adoption system and providing more government assistance in that area. If we're going to throw money at something, let's put it towards finding good homes for unwanted children.
 
2013-07-25 12:36:26 PM

SuburbanCowboy: Infertility is becoming more frequent because of the chemicals in the foods we eat, and the things in our surroundings. Men are having lower and lower sperm counts because of estrogen mimics in plastics, and from the increase in soy in all of our food.
we should be fixing those problems because they effect everyone.


Also woman are more and more suffering from Polycystic Ovarian syndrome caused by similar processed foods. It usually makes them unable to carry a child to term by age 25.

On other matters I'd mention that it's hard to adopt a newborn as there aren't many around. I suspect, however, that the rolling back of abortion laws should see more children becoming available in time.
 
2013-07-25 12:38:01 PM
If you can't afford to bring a child into this world by whatever means, how will you afford to raise said child to not be a burden on society?


Not trolling, absolutely dead serious!
 
2013-07-25 12:40:56 PM

Cyno01: teenytinycornteeth: People who are so gung ho to judge IVF couples for not adopting should do a little research into what it takes to adopt these days.  After seven years of infertility we went to Catholic Charities and were told we had to supply a $5,000 non-refundable "donation" up front just to apply.  Then you have to be researched and accepted, then a mom has to pick YOU out of the thousands of people who are submitted, and if picked, you then pay an additional $15-$18K "donation" in order to adopt the kid.  You can be on the list for seven years with no guarantee of getting a child and your application fee will not be returned.  While on the list for adoption if you happen to, by some miracle get pregnant, you're removed from the list without a refund because they don't want natural born infants and adopted children in the same home together.

Don't even get me started on the hoops required for adoption from foreign countries, which can include writing a letter of apology to the Chinese government for any past misdemeanors, even as a juvenile.

So its a myth that there are all these children sitting around as wards of the state waiting to be adopted?


Actually no, it's not a myth.  There are hundreds and thousands of children in the foster care system waiting to be adopted.  That's why there are so many older children and teenagers.  Some kids given up as babies are never placed and stay in the system until they age out and then they're on their own with no help, no guidance...boom...live your life to the fullest.

I'm not saying we should just allow anyone who shows up to take home a handful of kids...there have to be costs and systems and background checks in place in order to make sure the kids are safe, but I was simply flabbergasted, particularly with CATHOLIC Charities, who scream and yell about Pro-life shiat all the time "NO ABORTION, ADOPTION IS WONDERFUL!" and they really could not make it any harder to get one of those adoptive children.  Calling the non-refundable fees "donations" is also disgusting and disingenuous.  I wonder how much of these fees go to caring for the children in their care.
 
2013-07-25 12:42:10 PM
Don't know if it's already been said but...

Done in one.

Can't conceive naturally? Adopt.


/begin generalization-fueled mini-rant
Those who go for IVF don't want kids to continue the species and raise a healthy, functioning member of society. They want kids to make themselves feel better and adopting just doesn't provide that same level of self-satisfaction, does it? I understand that most of that mindset is socially driven but put on your big person pants and ignore the stupid social stigmas by being your own person.
/end generalization-fueled mini-rant
 
2013-07-25 12:47:27 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.


it's not an illness...it's a biological defect....like ugliness or baldness.   What's next free plastic surgery and hair implants for EBT holders?
 
2013-07-25 12:50:13 PM

Stoker: Over populated planet and idiot still want to bring as many new people into this world.

It' got to be for the Soylent Green.


Relax, almost all IVF parents are educated middle class whites. They normally will produce new generations of future taxpayers. That's why Congress wants to fund it.
 
2013-07-25 12:51:24 PM

KimNorth: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Ever see a third world, poor as dirt farmer struggling to conceive children? Maybe evolution is telling you something, middle class white people.

Yes and they send the wife back to their mothers house and take another wife then if that wife does not get pregnant she might get smart and start doing the brother giving the husband children so it all works out.....You need to get out more! Your point is invalid. They have infertility but for different reasons.


Don't get caught at it.

cfs6.tistory.com
 
2013-07-25 12:52:37 PM

Brittabot: vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.

While that is a perfectly valid option, adoption is oftentimes just as expensive as IVF.

/also, good luck being approved for an adoption if you're poor.


I went through the process of becoming a foster parent. Myself and my wife had to go through 8 weeks of "training" in a classroom setting.

The class was full of welfare recipients wanting to become fostar parents so they could draw a govt check.

Myself and my wife, who getup and work for a living make too much money to draw a check.. btw, it's 600 bucks in foodstamps, and 800 bucks cash per child in case anyone's curious. Some of the people that attended the class with us used this as their full time job.

Foster and adoption are 2 different things, yes, adoption is a bit more difficult to get approval for. But oddly enough, there is still a govt check you can recieve after adopting.


Rambling and have forgotten my point of posting... so, bye!
 
2013-07-25 12:54:33 PM
Look on the bright side:

* Humans have a natural urge to reproduce their useless selves. It's biology. It's evolution. Some people can love adopted children, but most don't love them as much as blood relations which is why people are more likely to murder a non-blood relation than a similarly close blood relation. All your exes are buried in Texas. WE'RE ON TO YOUR EVIL WAYS.

* When people go to that kind of trouble, a baby is a wanted baby.

* The population growth rate in some countries is close to or below zero. This has many repercussions in the political, economic, cultural and social spheres. It is probably good to have the population growth rate close to zero, but not too low or too high.

* Births mean fewer immigrants are needed, which should satisfy the anti-immigrant and xenophobic portion of the population. If you don't like Mexicans and don't want them working for $2.00 an hour under slave conditions (WTF? why wouldn't you want them working at $2.00 under slave conditions if you don't like them?) then you should be happy that reproductive technology makes it possible for fat, lazy (mostly) white bastards like yourself to reproduce. Take care of your diabetes or it will kill you and your children.

* There is a shortage of healthy white babies to adopt. You have to "settle" for a child who is non-white, seriously handicapped or ill, and possibly no longer young enough to be cute, let alone to adapt to your family life. In short, you might have to adopt a sassy black dwarf teenager, like Gary Coleman. NTTAWWT.
Who the Hell do you think you are? Michael Jackson? If you could raise a sassy black dwarf properly, you'd have your own ferris wheel and a complete fun park in the back yard.

* Hey, what can I say? It's your damn Constitution that guarantees people the right to the pursuit of happiness. That means the natural state of being happy, not the chase, by the way. The word had a slightly different meaning in those days. It was broader. The Founders believed that the natural state of man was happiness (not contentment, but something more active). They believed God meant for us to be happy (and good). They therefore guaranteed it by law. You should be able to lead an active and reasonably safe and pleasant life. That's what America the Beautiful is all about. Her Evil Twin, America the Evil Harpy is just the opposite. She ain't promising anybody the right to plant a rose garden, and she'll tear it up if you try.

I like to think that Canada guarantees its people the right to the pursuit of happiness as well, in its own way. But being more conservative at the time of our Constitution-mongering in 1867, and more liberal at the second phase in 1982, we guaranteed a whole lot more and a whole lot less.

For example, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms contained language that explicitly said that it was not an exhaustive list of rights and freedoms, and that the categories of people guaranteed these rights and freedoms were only for example. Thus it was easy to give gays the right to marry: they were implicitly grandfathered in before anybody dared to propose the legislation.

Sneaky bastards! Most MPs, even in the Conservative Party, couldn't see any really good reasons for gays and lesbians and many others not to have exactly the same rights and duties as other citizens, but they didn't want to PO their constituents back home in their ridings. So they left the job to "activist" judges in the Supreme Court and to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canadians have a whole bunch of unspoken rights and freedoms. We have no idea what they are until somebody complains about them being violated.

Cool.

I think that's cool.

The USA is separate but equal. You have a different way of doing things. It is at once more actively bootstrapy and more insane. It is called Congress.

In fact, this is one reason why I am on the American Fark.com instead of the Canadian Fark.com. You are fascinating little moonbats. Oh, don't demure. You know it.

The other reason is that there isn't, to the best of my knowledge, a Canadian Fark.com.

We have to piggy back on your resources, which are 9-12 times greater than our own because you have a bigger population (9x) with a lot more rich people (at least 12x) in it. You have half the world's billionaires, which means that you are trodden under the feet of the 1% more than us, but your 1% can also be more productive and generous than our 1%, who aren't nearly as numerous or rich.

Personally I suspect that Canada could use some major population growth and that we can't do it all by ourselves. Breeding is just too much work for kids nowaday. My Father spoke of this indirectly when I was home for a week of vacation and photograph scanning.

The family name is not being carried on by my immediate extended family. Of course, the other few million family members may be having greater success than us. Any hoo, that's not as serious as it sounds. My ancestors have had a lot more daughters than sons, and apparently, as Lisa is told by one of her female relations, the defective Simpson gene is carried on the Y chromosome. We don't produce as many great men as some more numerous family names, but those we do are often lulus (one of my many times great-uncles saved Canada from extinction--TWICE. Three times if you count his 15 children.). And our Lulus are often great women.

It's a question of tactics. Some times it is better to have sons, some times it is better to have daughters. In war you need many sons, in peacetime, many daughters, to get the job done. We have lived in peace for most of our 400 years in the New World. We have prospered, but under a variety of aliases and nationalities.
 
2013-07-25 12:54:48 PM

vernonFL: [sfist.com image 300x220]


s.mcstatic.com
HE'S ARE BABY TOO
 
2013-07-25 12:57:48 PM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


But if you have poor vision, isn't that God's way of saying don't wear glasses?
 
2013-07-25 12:58:58 PM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


He's adorable.

Make sure you have copies of his birth certificate if he is eligible to be President. If you need advice on how to dance the infamous Dance of the Seven Veils with birth certificates, my 9th cousin 3 times removed, Barrack Hussein Obama, is considered to be an expert by many of my stupider, more backward cousins.
 
2013-07-25 12:58:59 PM

bmwericus: /adopted myself


You adopted yourself?  How does that work?

Someone brought up a good point up thread about setting aside money for a year which would cover the cost of IVF.  Daycare for a newborn can easily approach 10K for a year.  Food, clothes, diapers, etc. for a child over year is going to be at least 5K.  If you can't set aside that money over the course of a year, how will you be able to afford raising a child.  If you don't have the planning skills and discipline to save that money, do you have the skills necessary to be a good parent.  This is not saying you need 15K now.  This is saying you want to do this, save for a year and do it.  It will have the added benefit of getting used to not having that extra cash your child will cost you.

Giving people who are not economically able to afford a child (or IVF) is not going to break the cycle of poverty.
 
2013-07-25 01:01:37 PM
Goddamnit, no. If someone can't afford to take care of a little git, he or she should not farking have them until they are financially stable. Your hearts can hearts bleed all you want them to, but please stop using my money on lost causes; why don't you use it to fight overpopulation, or unemployment?
 
2013-07-25 01:02:20 PM
Adoption ain't cheap.
 
2013-07-25 01:02:41 PM

zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.


Awesome, force a couple to raise a child they don't really want. I can't see anything going wrong with that scenario.
 
2013-07-25 01:02:57 PM

brantgoose: That means the natural state of being happy, not the chase, by the way. The word had a slightly different meaning in those days. It was broader. The Founders believed that the natural state of man was happiness (not contentment, but something more active)


Citation needed.

If that is true I have the right to a lot of things I don't have, because I'm not currently happy.
 
2013-07-25 01:04:24 PM

brantgoose: * Hey, what can I say? It's your damn Constitution that guarantees people the right to the pursuit of happiness


Was a 28th amendment passed that I don't know about because that phrase does not appear in my version of the constitution. Now my copy of the deceleration of independence happens to have it.
 
2013-07-25 01:07:29 PM
It's a tax credit, not assistance.  You have to spend money to get the money back.  Poor people dont have the initial 24k it takes to get the 12k return.  Who has 24k laying around that isnt in the Gee Oh Pee's voting bloc?
 
2013-07-25 01:09:20 PM

someradicaldude: If you can't afford to bring a child into this world by whatever means, how will you afford to raise said child to not be a burden on society?


Not trolling, absolutely dead serious!


You know, it really doesn't cost that much the raise a kid, at least not until they get into school, unless of course you have to pay for daycare. In our case my wife left her job, because we would have lost money with her working and paying for daycare. The food is pretty cheap, our son is 2 and a half, and is happy with a simple sandwich and carrots for lunch, for dinner he eats what we eat, clothes and shows can add up, but Carter's always has big sales, and there are plenty of used clothing stores that specialize in kids clothes, most of which have barely been worn in the first place.

Right now, including inflation and everything else, it will cost me $304,000 to raise my son to 18 years old, and that includes 83k to pay for public college tuition. (http://www.babycenter.com/cost-of-raising-child-calculator) That is around 12k per year.

IVF usually runs 20k per try, or more.

But, here is another way to look at it.

The median salary in the US is $47,000, and those people pay around 7050 in federal income tax per year, then over the course of a 30 year career you can expect those people to pay $211,500 in federal income taxes (Not including state or city taxes).

Now lets say that taxes pay 100% of the IVF treatment, and assume that the average IVF successes rate is 50%, so for each successful IVF it costs roughly 40k. That would mean over the given lifespan of that person, we have a positive tax income of $171,500

So the government is really just investing in future labor force and tax payers.
 
2013-07-25 01:11:37 PM
Sure, $100-200K is totally worth it to create a new human, because there are so few of us.
 
2013-07-25 01:17:08 PM

oldtaku: Sure, $100-200K is totally worth it to create a new human, because there are so few of us.


my point being, money isn't a valid argument, if you are saying the US is overpopulated, then that is just silly. the US isn't over populated, we have plenty of food, and plenty of space. We have a poor management system, and we do a bad job of dealing with those problems, I'll certainly agree with that.

But don't use the, "not with my money" line, because in the end, they money is more than paid back.
 
2013-07-25 01:17:46 PM

brantgoose: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

He's adorable.

Make sure you have copies of his birth certificate if he is eligible to be President. If you need advice on how to dance the infamous Dance of the Seven Veils with birth certificates, my 9th cousin 3 times removed, Barrack Hussein Obama, is considered to be an expert by many of my stupider, more backward cousins.


Birth Certificate?  I've got video of his birth in a Boston hospital and him immediately swaddled in an american flag.
 
2013-07-25 01:20:58 PM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


As a atheist, I say Fark 'im. What has God done for us lately? Isn't He dead or something? You don't see him around much anymore, like you used to in the first chapters of Genesis.

It's not wise to fool around with Mother Nature, but it's not hard to improve on her handiwork either. Decisions have to be on a case-by-case basis. I'd hate to see reproductive technology used for unethical purposes or unwise purposes, such as sex-selection or the elimination of homosexuals. Homosexuals occur naturally in most of the "higher" species, so they must be useful to the species.

There's a lot to be said on either side of reproductive issues, but I think mostly every one should have freedom unless they are grossly incompetent or warped in some way. Even retarded people can produce healthy children of normal or superior intelligence, and even people with serious genetic tares that threaten the life of their offspring can use reproductive technology to avoid the sperm that carry those genes.

There's a reason why men produce gadzillions of sperm. They (the sperm as well as the men) compete. They are immensely variable. They give the species more room to evolve at near zero cost. In short, the Y chromosome is a good thing, even if it means a few genetic problems when it carries a defective gene. One reason why it is getting shorter is that all the defective genes it carries are being eliminated. The X chromosome often exists in two copies (even in some men) and thus doesn't get naturally selected as quickly.

Sex is a fairly good system. It works.

But reproductive technology can help when it doesn't work. It needs to be used carefully, prudently, ethically, and wisely, but it is all in all, a good thing.

I have concerns about the use and abuse of reproductive technology, but we don't have to listen to religion or to older, evolutionary imperatives. We can think and we should think until it hurts. This is part of being human. We are, as the philosopher said, slender, fragile, weak reeds, but we are reeds that think.

Bring on the genetic revolution, but make haste slowly, as the Emperor Augustus advised his bureaucrats to do.

The decision to have a child is one that most fallible humans can make for themselves. It is one that Nature no longer makes for every living thing because we have evolved minds and culture and religion and ethical philosophy, all tools that can be a powerful and healthy supplements to our instincts.

J.B.S. Haldane, whom I am reading with great pleasure and profit, said that some people use mainly human-based thinking and some people use universe-thinking. Scientists are in the universe-thinking camp mostly, while religious thinkers and the instinct-driven are mainly thinking in human terms or not thinking much.

I agree with him that we need both kinds of thinking, and that most of us muddle through with one or both at times. The truthiness people and the truth people, the fact-based and the Faith-based, the Xenophobes and the Xenophiles, use both to various degrees. I lean towards the universe-based camp but do not regard this kind of thinking as fool-proof, fail-safe or infalliable.

We need to think both on human time scales and universal time scales, we need to act locally and globally, we need to be better than we are.

Reproductive technology can help a lot to eliminate our faults, but it shouldn't be used to eliminate the wrong faults. Some of our faults are good for us. All science is based in a profound understanding of the role of ignorance in learning about the world. In fact, one of the greatest achievements of science, the theory of evolution, is practically a solution to the greatest problem which theologians have failed to solve in the last six thousand years or more: the Problem of Evil.

Not only does death play a creative role through natural selection, creating diversity and great beauty and strength in species by carving away the weak or maladapted like a sculptor carving stone or a topiary artist carving plants, but some of the other "evils" are similarly virtues in moderation and under proper control and guidance.

Our instincts are "designed" for a different world. We need to change them and guide them or we face death by obesity, death by addiction, death by violence or stupidity or misguided thoughts and actions, death even by hubris as we come to gain the powers of the gods without their wisdom and patience.
 
2013-07-25 01:23:02 PM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

img842.imageshack.us

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread
 
2013-07-25 01:23:26 PM
Despite being rampantly fertile with two of my own wonderful kids, we looked into adoption and foster care.  We have a lot to share, and I don't want to do the pregnancy thing again.

Adoption - crazy money and hoops to jump through, with a high probability of failure.  Fostering, we are out because we are both engineers and work outside the home.  If you need daycare, you are ineligible to foster.
 
2013-07-25 01:28:36 PM
You can't make insurance companies cover birth control but let them not cover IVF.

Either they cover everybody's reproductive preferences or none.
 
2013-07-25 01:32:33 PM
According to the second creation myth in Genesis, God threw mankind out of Eden for fear least we eat of a second tree's fruit, the Tree of Life. We had already eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so we are ethical creatures, but with immortality we would have "become as gods".

I have noticed that people who have apple trees tend to count the apples and notice if some of them are missing. This may have been inherited from our Creator--be he or she God or Nature.

But the Old Coot had a point. We would have been even more destructive if we were immortal before we were wise and good. The Earth would have perished long ago as it is in danger of perishing not too far into the geological future from our wanton wastefulness.

But the Old Coot had a point. I will admit that much even though I don't believe in Him. I can still think like a Christian even though I haven't been a dues-paying Christian since puberty.

I believe, as Terry Pratchett and others have put it, that Darwin might have made a truly great theologian. I believe with them that he solved the Problem of Evil as well as Spinoza or any theologian or philosopher.

Death and evil are necessary for progress to exist. The trouble with angels is that they lack free will and a number of other improvements that make Man such an interesting experiment in Good and Evil.

And boy, do we ever excel in Evil! The Devil was put out of work by us long ago! In Good, however, we have our work cut out for us. There is often only one right way, although there are thousands of ways to go wrong. And sometimes there are many right ways, of which we are aware of only a few and have practiced even fewer.

If, and it's a big if, there is a Providence that shapes our ends, it seems to be of the DIY kind. We are jerry-built, bodgets, unfinished, and what programmers call kludge.

God obviously forgot some of his best work between one day and the next. Squids have better eyes than men. Birds have better lungs. Bees can see ultraviolet light and thus find their way into trumpet flowers that are clearly marked in ultraviolet patterns that are invisible to the human eye. But then birds and bees and flowers evolved together in ways they did not evolve with humans. They form a mutual aid society in which we have little part.

So God is not the be-all-and-end-all for me. He is just another tool, doing the best he can in a world that is obviously pretty well-fitted to fend for itself.
 
2013-07-25 01:34:41 PM
Look at all of the charming people who will stand up on their soapbox and tell other people that they should adopt, but have no intention of ever doing so themselves. That sort of thing is for *other people.*
 
2013-07-25 01:39:51 PM

Gratch: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

[img842.imageshack.us image 480x640]

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread


those are some keepers right there.
 
2013-07-25 01:42:34 PM
The only mention I saw in TFA about the government actually paying for the procedure referred to the VA helping out with IVF or adoption services for people who suffer infertility due to service-related injuries.  I don't have a problem with that.
 
2013-07-25 01:44:21 PM

God Is My Co-Pirate: fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness a sign from natural selection that you shouldn't propagate


FTFY
 
2013-07-25 01:51:44 PM
Buncha holier-than-thou people floating around in this thread. There's pros and cons to adoption and IVF. Just don't be an asshole and do what's right for you. Adoption should be easier and less expensive. There should also be access to mental healthcare for the child. Not all children up for adoption are dream kids. Some of them are nightmares, but not through any fault of their own.
 
2013-07-25 02:01:55 PM

flondrix: The only mention I saw in TFA about the government actually paying for the procedure referred to the VA helping out with IVF or adoption services for people who suffer infertility due to service-related injuries.  I don't have a problem with that.


There was also talk of a tax credit for out of pocket expenses
 
2013-07-25 02:03:00 PM

Rev.K: People who can't afford IVF treatments doesn't equal "poor people"  subby, you sh*thead.


Uh, that's exactly what it equals.
 
2013-07-25 02:09:06 PM

Gratch: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

Adorable.

I'll continue it with my 5-week old IVF twins

[img842.imageshack.us image 480x640]

Could we have done adoption?  Sure, but it wouldn't have been any less expensive and the chances of actually getting placed were about the same as the chances of IVF success.  I wanted my own babies...sue me.

Oh, and we saved, scrimped, and borrowed $20K for these two and another $20K for Gratchling #1 (4 year old).  Never a second thought about the investment.

//we're all doing just fine without any government assistance, thank you very much.
///laughing at all the wildly inaccurate assumptions about both IVF and adoption in this thread


I love the babby photo and congrats to you and your spouse.  Good on 'ya. Good for not relying upon the silly US government for aid and choosing your own path.  BTW, the one on the right looks like he's ready to go out dancing :)
 
2013-07-25 02:12:47 PM

keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!


He's beautiful. :)
 
2013-07-25 02:19:12 PM
After seeing Gratch's great photo, and having read and re read this thread (it is relevant to my interests, after all). I can only get to two conclusions:

1.  No government or agency should prohibit, restrict, nor encourage the inception of children, unless at the will of parents/family/step parents and at that point, government needs to back out of the bedroom, slowly.

2.  It is still wrong for the US government to fund IVF when our foster care system is so out of whack and people like me living common law have a step child with no background checks, no security checks, nada.  Just my word that I'm his stem mom and no one worries about it.  How many people abuse that same trust?
 
2013-07-25 02:20:35 PM
*step, not stem.
 
2013-07-25 02:36:13 PM

GirlScoutSniper: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

He's beautiful. :)


i make pretty babies.

/actually, my wife brings the pretty
//https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151589691927359&l=876053419 9838 987261
/// notice he is putting things away in that video: those are my wife's genes
//// notice he is drooling and has command of random facts: those are my genes
 
2013-07-25 02:39:05 PM
Don't need no stinkin' Nipple Necks!

s8.postimg.org
 
2013-07-25 02:39:29 PM
If you can't come up with the money to make it, where will you get the money to raise it?

\\It wasn't unworldly expensive, pricey yes, but not so expensive that a person that could afford to raise a child couldn't afford it.
 
2013-07-25 02:51:03 PM

ThatDarkFellow: Uh, that's exactly what it equals.


So supposing you needed IVF treatments right now, you've got $20,000 cash ready to go?
 
2013-07-25 02:53:47 PM

teenytinycornteeth: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Ok, and are you ok with the government paying for the sometimes $20,000 it costs to adopt?


Oh no, the kids would be free from the orphanages.
 
2013-07-25 02:56:33 PM

fiddlehead: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Awesome, force a couple to raise a child they don't really want. I can't see anything going wrong with that scenario.


So it IS all about YOUR genes.  If the adoption agency gave you a baby, you wouldn't want it, would you?
 
2013-07-25 03:01:22 PM
Odd this. The gf was conceived by what I assumed was ivf and she just turned 37. I know that the male contribution to her genes was a sperm donor. So is there another technique with donor sperm other than ivf? Turkey baster perhaps?
 
2013-07-25 03:15:11 PM

cchris_39: You can't make insurance companies cover birth control but let them not cover IVF.

Either they cover everybody's reproductive preferences or none.


i'm sure someone else has pointed this out by now, but birth control isn't just to prevent babies!  i'm pretty sure IVF is not going to slow the spread of my endometriosis.
 
2013-07-25 03:15:55 PM

zabadu: So it IS all about YOUR genes.  If the adoption agency gave you a baby, you wouldn't want it, would you?


what the hell is it to you?

Geezus -- these threads all come down to this point: you should adopt if you can't have a kid naturally because ... fark you: adopt.

Genes are a big deal to some -- and adoption is a big deal to others.

finding a reason to hate loving parents seems ridiculous
 
2013-07-25 03:22:17 PM

vernonFL: IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.


And poor people should follow the dictates of vernonFL.  He knows better than you, farkin' poor people!

cranked: FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?

Just like cancer or a heart attack.  Or being a ginger.


Yeah, being a ginger is such a boner-killer.  Who would fark a ginger?
www4.images.coolspotters.com
((okay, she may not be a real redhead, but c'mon, look at that!!!))
 
2013-07-25 03:22:45 PM

Lord Farkwad: Don't need no stinkin' Nipple Necks!

[s8.postimg.org image 576x432]


Borders on the obscure for those that don't click the link
 
2013-07-25 03:26:12 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: Uh, that's exactly what it equals.

So supposing you needed IVF treatments right now, you've got $20,000 cash ready to go?


1) A person NEEDS IVF as much as they need liposuction or a brand new vehicle.

2) I could find the assets if I needed the money.

3) I'm not sure what your point is. If I didn't have the money to get the kid in the first place then how would I have money afterwards to raise it?
 
2013-07-25 03:26:20 PM
you people are as ridiculous as ever.


So is there another technique with donor sperm other than ivf? Turkey baster perhaps?

IUI.  Intrauterine insemination.

for everyone screaming about "you poor people need to pay for yer own kid, not ask me to pay for your babymaking so you can get another kid on the guvmint teat!" 
need to consider a few things:

first, someone need not be poor not to be able to drop 12-20k all at once to afford IVF.

second, that families can be perfectly happy with an income that is stable, provides for their needs (even with an extra person) and STILL not be able to drop 12-20k.  (your taxes go down when you have another dependent, providing for even more realized income, especially in the income bracket of 45-50k that we're really concerned with here)

third, that IVF, while elective, is certainly medically necessary.  lots of surgeries are both things.

fourth, IVF *SUCKS.*  there's no one out there who, once the procedure is explained, says "hey!  let's go  through the physical stress of forced massive ovulation, the surgery of having those eggs removed, the inconvenience of having to go in and beat off into a cup, the discomfort of having those embryos implanted, and the heartbreak of losing a pregnancy! then we can have another dependent!"

I'd much rather see insurance companies forced to cover it, but if the feds want to subsidize it, whatever.
 
2013-07-25 03:27:52 PM
A person NEEDS IVF as much as they need liposuction or a brand new vehicle.

what a ridiculous statement.
 
2013-07-25 03:36:17 PM

ThatDarkFellow: 3) I'm not sure what your point is. If I didn't have the money to get the kid in the first place then how would I have money afterwards to raise it?


My point is that by your logic, if you can't afford this, you're poor.

Can you afford a house, in full, right now? No, probably not. But if you have a steady job and a reasonable income, of course you could own a home.

A $20,000 outlay is pretty large no matter who you are. So you could be a middle-class family that has fertility problems, but also has difficulty in covering that cost. Much like a mortgage, they can afford to raise children, they may not be able to afford the $20,000 to $80,000 in upfront costs for IVF treatments.

That doesn't make them poor and that doesn't mean they shouldn't be extended the treatments if they are in need of them.
 
2013-07-25 03:36:48 PM

kerouac555: A person NEEDS IVF as much as they need liposuction or a brand new vehicle.

what a ridiculous statement.


Oh, I'm sorry. Please tell me about the drastically diminished life span of those afflicted by infertility.
 
2013-07-25 03:39:29 PM
I'm as libby lib as the next lib but the one thing I do not support is subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant.  If you can afford it then by all means be my guest.  I have nothing against IVF or whatever method you prefer.  But to me, not being able to reproduce is not a medical condition that requires treatment for the well being of the person afflicted.  It's not the equivalent of a "disease" or "disorder" that should be covered by insurance.  It's one of those "life isn't always fair" sorts of things.
 
2013-07-25 03:41:14 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: 3) I'm not sure what your point is. If I didn't have the money to get the kid in the first place then how would I have money afterwards to raise it?

My point is that by your logic, if you can't afford this, you're poor.

Can you afford a house, in full, right now? No, probably not. But if you have a steady job and a reasonable income, of course you could own a home.

A $20,000 outlay is pretty large no matter who you are. So you could be a middle-class family that has fertility problems, but also has difficulty in covering that cost. Much like a mortgage, they can afford to raise children, they may not be able to afford the $20,000 to $80,000 in upfront costs for IVF treatments.

That doesn't make them poor and that doesn't mean they shouldn't be extended the treatments if they are in need of them.


If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.
 
2013-07-25 03:43:16 PM

kerouac555: third, that IVF, while elective, is certainly medically necessary. lots of surgeries are both things.


I'm sorry, I'm late to the thread.  What makes IVF medically necessary?
 
2013-07-25 03:45:10 PM

ThatDarkFellow: If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.


Yes, that's a fine humanistic idea. Let's deny infertile couples the ability to have children because they might need society to help them out. Just end their dreams, or give them their dreams and cut off everything else.

You sound like a wonderfully compassionate human being.
 
2013-07-25 03:51:30 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.

Yes, that's a fine humanistic idea. Let's deny infertile couples the ability to have children because they might need society to help them out. Just end their dreams, or give them their dreams and cut off everything else.

You sound like a wonderfully compassionate human being.


Hey, guess what, life isn't fair. Society shouldn't have to fund your pregnancy then pay to raise the kid for you.
 
2013-07-25 03:53:06 PM
Oh, I'm sorry. Please tell me about the drastically diminished life span of those afflicted by infertility.

Oh, is that the criterion we're using to define medically necessary now?  I didn't get the memo. But excellent. Let's stop subsidizing mental health. lots of old crazy people out there, so that's out. benign tumors? cleft palate? hearing loss? sorry, y'all. heck, you can live a long, happy life if you're visually impaired, so we can stop subsidizing eye care! kidney stones hurt, but 85% of them pass without medical intervention, so come back later. and most asthma is a perfectly manageable condition without intervention as long as you sit on your ass.

and there are some non-medical programs we should look at too.  no one needs a college education to keep a pulse, so pell grants and federal loans should go.  oh!  and FHA loans...

i'm so glad that only things that "drastically diminish life span" are what we're helping people with now.
 
2013-07-25 03:54:27 PM

Pincy: kerouac555: third, that IVF, while elective, is certainly medically necessary. lots of surgeries are both things.

I'm sorry, I'm late to the thread.  What makes IVF medically necessary?


People who suffer from infertility only live to be around 80 years old on average with little to no pain unless they contract an actual ailment. It's time we find a cure.
 
2013-07-25 03:55:22 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: Uh, that's exactly what it equals.

So supposing you needed IVF treatments right now, you've got $20,000 cash ready to go?


...how urgently does anyone need to get pregnant? IVF isn't exactly an outpatient procedure, either. Getting an embryo implanted in your uterus isn't exactly an impulse purchase.

As stated earlier in the thread: Save up for it. Put aside all the money you'd otherwise spend on the child for a year, and if you don't have enough for the procedure then you almost certainly don't have enough to support the child properly.
=Smidge=
 
2013-07-25 03:56:17 PM

kerouac555: Oh, I'm sorry. Please tell me about the drastically diminished life span of those afflicted by infertility.

Oh, is that the criterion we're using to define medically necessary now?  I didn't get the memo. But excellent. Let's stop subsidizing mental health. lots of old crazy people out there, so that's out. benign tumors? cleft palate? hearing loss? sorry, y'all. heck, you can live a long, happy life if you're visually impaired, so we can stop subsidizing eye care! kidney stones hurt, but 85% of them pass without medical intervention, so come back later. and most asthma is a perfectly manageable condition without intervention as long as you sit on your ass.

and there are some non-medical programs we should look at too.  no one needs a college education to keep a pulse, so pell grants and federal loans should go.  oh!  and FHA loans...

i'm so glad that only things that "drastically diminish life span" are what we're helping people with now.


If you don't see the difference between infertility and everything else you just listed then you're retarded.
 
2013-07-25 03:58:45 PM

Pincy: I'm as libby lib as the next lib but the one thing I do not support is subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant.  If you can afford it then by all means be my guest.  I have nothing against IVF or whatever method you prefer.  But to me, not being able to reproduce is not a medical condition that requires treatment for the well being of the person afflicted.  It's not the equivalent of a "disease" or "disorder" that should be covered by insurance.  It's one of those "life isn't always fair" sorts of things.


Yeah, and muscular distrophy is one of those "life isn't always fair" things.  My dad died from a heart attack when I was 4, but "life isn't always fair", so I got over it.  If we all adopted the sometimes "life isn't always fair" ideology, there would be no modern medicine to take care of you when you turn 60 and your brain falls out of your ass.
 
2013-07-25 03:58:59 PM

Pincy: I'm as libby lib as the next lib but the one thing I do not support is subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant.  If you can afford it then by all means be my guest.  I have nothing against IVF or whatever method you prefer.  But to me, not being able to reproduce is not a medical condition that requires treatment for the well being of the person afflicted.  It's not the equivalent of a "disease" or "disorder" that should be covered by insurance.  It's one of those "life isn't always fair" sorts of things.


Eh...reproduction is a basic biological function. It's actually a pretty big part of what defines us as lifeforms in the first place. What is or isn't a "disease/disorder" is a pretty malleable concept, I'd grant. But not including infertility in whatever definition you come up with is probably going to involve some intellectual acrobatics.

Simpler just to say, "I don't support subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant," and leave it at that.
 
2013-07-25 03:59:29 PM

zabadu: fiddlehead: zabadu: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

I think people who are candidates for IVF should be forced to adopt first.  Then they can have it for free (or whatever the gov't is offering because I didn't read the article).  This whole "I gotta have my own genes in the kid" is ridiculous.

Awesome, force a couple to raise a child they don't really want. I can't see anything going wrong with that scenario.

So it IS all about YOUR genes.  If the adoption agency gave you a baby, you wouldn't want it, would you?


Hey pal, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think your idea of forcing couples to adopt before they can undergo IVF is stupid. And yes, many people want their own children, or something similar to their vision of it. Will you force couples to adopt a child of a different race, an older child, or a child with mental or physical disabilities? How many couples are keen on that idea? Not many, based on the fact that so many of those children are still waiting to be adopted. It's a recipe for favoritism, neglect, and worse.
 
2013-07-25 04:00:22 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.

Yes, that's a fine humanistic idea. Let's deny infertile couples the ability to have children because they might need society to help them out. Just end their dreams, or give them their dreams and cut off everything else.

You sound like a wonderfully compassionate human being.


Who is denying infertile couples from having children?  God?  Mother Nature?  Random chance?  I guess I didn't realize it is a basic human right of every person ever born to be able to procreate.  This is one of those "life isn't fair" sort of things.  Just like it's not fair I'm not a foot taller or better looking or have had this bad back since my teens that has kept me from fulfilling all of my childhood dreams.
 
2013-07-25 04:01:27 PM

Aquapope: Pincy: I'm as libby lib as the next lib but the one thing I do not support is subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant.  If you can afford it then by all means be my guest.  I have nothing against IVF or whatever method you prefer.  But to me, not being able to reproduce is not a medical condition that requires treatment for the well being of the person afflicted.  It's not the equivalent of a "disease" or "disorder" that should be covered by insurance.  It's one of those "life isn't always fair" sorts of things.

Yeah, and muscular distrophy is one of those "life isn't always fair" things.  My dad died from a heart attack when I was 4, but "life isn't always fair", so I got over it.  If we all adopted the sometimes "life isn't always fair" ideology, there would be no modern medicine to take care of you when you turn 60 and your brain falls out of your ass.


So you are equating not being able to procreate with those disorders?  Interesting.
 
2013-07-25 04:02:44 PM
If you don't see the difference between infertility and everything else you just listed then you're retarded.

There's another one!  old retards!

the only difference is that someone behind a desk decided that everything else made the cut. subsidizing even non-debilitating mental health was a retarded idea until someone decided it wasn't and got enough people to agree.

you made the criterion: shortened life span.  not me.  everything i listed falls under the umbrella you defined.  if there's a criterion that makes it "necessary" for the feds to subsidize cleft palate repair, asthma, mental health, college loans, mortgage insurance, vision care, kidney stones and hearing loss but does not apply to medical problems conceiving after all other means have been exhausted, please enlighten me, because it seems like a pretty arbitrary thing to me.
 
2013-07-25 04:05:38 PM
also... "not farking" is a perfectly valid option to avoid pregnancy, so we probably ought to quit subsidizing contraception.
 
2013-07-25 04:16:00 PM

kerouac555: If you don't see the difference between infertility and everything else you just listed then you're retarded.

There's another one!  old retards!

the only difference is that someone behind a desk decided that everything else made the cut. subsidizing even non-debilitating mental health was a retarded idea until someone decided it wasn't and got enough people to agree.

you made the criterion: shortened life span.  not me.  everything i listed falls under the umbrella you defined.  if there's a criterion that makes it "necessary" for the feds to subsidize cleft palate repair, asthma, mental health, college loans, mortgage insurance, vision care, kidney stones and hearing loss but does not apply to medical problems conceiving after all other means have been exhausted, please enlighten me, because it seems like a pretty arbitrary thing to me.


Yes, we have the technology today that allows us to determine why people can't procreate and also to help them procreate when they normally wouldn't be able to.  But just because we have that technology doesn't necessarily make it a "medical problem".  It's a problem for the people it affects, I'll grant you that, but it's not a problem that requires fixing and requires the rest of us to subsidize it.  People will still live long healthy lives if they don't ever procreate.  Yes, they will have to deal with some disappointment, but we all have things in life like that that we have to deal with.
 
2013-07-25 04:17:39 PM

kerouac555: also... "not farking" is a perfectly valid option to avoid pregnancy, so we probably ought to quit subsidizing contraception.


Well, you see -- infertility isn't a medical problem deserving of treatment, but fertility is.

It makes perfect sense.
 
2013-07-25 04:33:08 PM

ThatDarkFellow: Hey, guess what, life isn't fair. Society shouldn't have to fund your pregnancy then pay to raise the kid for you.


THEY AREN'T POOR! IT'S A SUBSIDY TO RECEIVE TREATMENT.

That's what the house example was about. Yes, they can afford to raise kids, they just don't have the tens of thousands of dollars for treatments  so they can actually become pregnant.

Pincy: Who is denying infertile couples from having children?  God?  Mother Nature?  Random chance?  I guess I didn't realize it is a basic human right of every person ever born to be able to procreate.  This is one of those "life isn't fair" sort of things.  Just like it's not fair I'm not a foot taller or better looking or have had this bad back since my teens that has kept me from fulfilling all of my childhood dreams.


LOL! You have cancer.

Well, life ain't fair. Try to die quickly.

Wow. You people are wonderful human beings.
 
2013-07-25 04:34:00 PM

kerouac555: also... "not farking" is a perfectly valid option to avoid pregnancy, so we probably ought to quit subsidizing contraception.


Precisely.
 
2013-07-25 04:37:26 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: Hey, guess what, life isn't fair. Society shouldn't have to fund your pregnancy then pay to raise the kid for you.

THEY AREN'T POOR! IT'S A SUBSIDY TO RECEIVE TREATMENT.

That's what the house example was about. Yes, they can afford to raise kids, they just don't have the tens of thousands of dollars for treatments  so they can actually become pregnant.

Pincy: Who is denying infertile couples from having children?  God?  Mother Nature?  Random chance?  I guess I didn't realize it is a basic human right of every person ever born to be able to procreate.  This is one of those "life isn't fair" sort of things.  Just like it's not fair I'm not a foot taller or better looking or have had this bad back since my teens that has kept me from fulfilling all of my childhood dreams.

LOL! You have cancer.

Well, life ain't fair. Try to die quickly.

Wow. You people are wonderful human beings.


Are you really this obtuse or do you just play one on TV?
 
2013-07-25 04:37:58 PM

keithgabryelski: GirlScoutSniper: keithgabryelski: [fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

[fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net image 669x893]

IN-VITRO PHOTO BOMB THREAD!!

He's beautiful. :)

i make pretty babies.

/actually, my wife brings the pretty
//https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151589691927359&l=876053419 9838 987261
/// notice he is putting things away in that video: those are my wife's genes
//// notice he is drooling and has command of random facts: those are my genes


Awesome. XD
 
2013-07-25 04:41:59 PM

Pincy: Are you really this obtuse or do you just play one on TV?


Medical science can aid the infertile and give them the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to have the child they want.

Nope. Costs money. Sorry, life ain't fair.


That's your argument. That's a pretty sh*tty thing to tell someone.
 
2013-07-25 04:53:56 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: Are you really this obtuse or do you just play one on TV?

Medical science can aid the infertile and give them the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to have the child they want.

Nope. Costs money. Sorry, life ain't fair.


That's your argument. That's a pretty sh*tty thing to tell someone.


Because it'll hurt their feelings it shouldn't be done?
 
2013-07-25 04:59:36 PM

BigNumber12: Look at all of the charming people who will stand up on their soapbox and tell other people that they should adopt, but have no intention of ever doing so themselves. That sort of thing is for *other people.*


The issue is "other" people want someone else to pay for it.   What part of "elective" in "elective procedure" don't you quite understand?
 
2013-07-25 05:02:31 PM

Pincy: I'm sorry, I'm late to the thread.  What makes IVF medically necessary?


It must be....the EBT crowd demands it.
 
2013-07-25 05:03:29 PM

Maggie_Luna: Because it'll hurt their feelings it shouldn't be done?


Why shouldn't it be done?

Because you don't think they should have kids?
Because you can't bear the thought of tax payers subsidizing it?
Because you consider it to be unnecessary?

Infertility is a medical condition. One that can be aided with medical science and technology to give a patient the quality of life they desire.

Now you might bring up a boob job as being similar, but a boob job is not a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. Not quite anyway.


And on the other side of the argument, people's tax dollars support all kinds of sh*t they don't like. But guess what? They don't get to pick and choose and neither do you.
 
2013-07-25 05:03:32 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: Are you really this obtuse or do you just play one on TV?

Medical science can aid the infertile and give them the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to have the child they want.

Nope. Costs money. Sorry, life ain't fair.

That's your argument. That's a pretty sh*tty thing to tell someone.


So if a woman determines that her quality of life will be improved with breast implants then we should subsidize those if she can't afford them?  My quality of life would be improved with more hair on my head.  Are you ready to subsidize by hair implants?

I understand that someone is going to be disappointed, distraught over not being able to procreate when they really really wanted to.  But this isn't a medical condition that needs to be fixed for the health of the person or society as a whole.  If they can afford to fix it, by all means, go ahead.  But until I see evidence or hear an argument that convinces me this is a problem that requires us as a society to fix then I'm just not buying it.

Yes, it sucks to say "life ain't fair", no argument there.  But we don't have unlimited financial resources.  We have to make choices about what we as society will spend money on and what we won't.  Lack of procreation just isn't on the top of my list.
 
2013-07-25 05:05:58 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: Are you really this obtuse or do you just play one on TV?

Medical science can aid the infertile and give them the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to have the child they want.

Nope. Costs money. Sorry, life ain't fair.


That's your argument. That's a pretty sh*tty thing to tell someone.


Yeah, and Chevrolet can aid the corvette-less and give the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to drive the gas guzzling, high horse-power car they want.   So by your logic, the dealer should just give it to me....or it would be a pretty sh*tty thing for them to tell me that I'm out of luck because I don't have the money for it.
 
2013-07-25 05:07:07 PM

king_nacho: There was also talk of a tax credit for out of pocket expenses


Does that mean letting people subtract (part of) the cost of IVF from their taxes, or from their pre-tax income?  The former is more extreme; I guess I was thinking they ment the latter.
 
2013-07-25 05:07:18 PM

Pincy: So if a woman determines that her quality of life will be improved with breast implants then we should subsidize those if she can't afford them?  My quality of life would be improved with more hair on my head.  Are you ready to subsidize by hair implants?


Small breasts aren't a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. One could also argue that the lifelong return of being a parent, outweighs the lifelong return of having large breasts, though that's debatable, I suppose.

My point is that medical science exists to enhance and repair the quality of life of human beings. Procreation is a natural instinct and is good for society and communities, much like any other public health issue.

That we would just tell infertile people that "life isn't fair" when we can help them is just unacceptable in my book.

Then again, I live in Canada with a universal healthcare system. So maybe I'm biased.
 
2013-07-25 05:08:19 PM

Eponymous: Yeah, and Chevrolet can aid the corvette-less and give the quality of life they seek, give them the opportunity to drive the gas guzzling, high horse-power car they want.   So by your logic, the dealer should just give it to me....or it would be a pretty sh*tty thing for them to tell me that I'm out of luck because I don't have the money for it.


Nope. That's not a medical condition.

Read what I wrote about infertility being a medical condition.
 
2013-07-25 05:08:56 PM

kerouac555: you people are as ridiculous as ever.


third, that IVF, while elective, is certainly medically necessary.  lots of surgeries are both things.


What a ridiculous statement.
 
2013-07-25 05:09:11 PM
Yikes.

Ok so I never thought of my own problem as a medical condition, and again never expected another soul to pay for it, regardless of what side of the aisle.  Anyway, couldn't have children at child bearing age as I am past it.
 
2013-07-25 05:10:53 PM

Rev.K: Maggie_Luna: Because it'll hurt their feelings it shouldn't be done?

Why shouldn't it be done?

Because you don't think they should have kids?
Because you can't bear the thought of tax payers subsidizing it?
Because you consider it to be unnecessary?

Infertility is a medical condition. One that can be aided with medical science and technology to give a patient the quality of life they desire.


Just because something is a "medical condition" doesn't necessarily make it "harmful" or require that it be fixed.  Yes, we have the technology that allows us to understand how human reproduction works and to figure out why it doesn't work in some people.   Yes, we also have the technology to overcome some of the barriers when it doesn't work.  That still doesn't make it urgent that we fix it in all people who have it.
 

Now you might bring up a boob job as being similar, but a boob job is not a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. Not quite anyway.

Please explain the difference for us laypeople.

And on the other side of the argument, people's tax dollars support all kinds of sh*t they don't like. But guess what? They don't get to pick and choose and neither do you.

Yes, we actually do to some extent.  We get to vote for people to represent us and we get to try and influence how they do their job representing us.
 
2013-07-25 05:13:13 PM

Eponymous: BigNumber12: Look at all of the charming people who will stand up on their soapbox and tell other people that they should adopt, but have no intention of ever doing so themselves. That sort of thing is for *other people.*

The issue is "other" people want someone else to pay for it.   What part of "elective" in "elective procedure" don't you quite understand?


I'm referring to people who are speaking against IVF in general.
 
2013-07-25 05:17:22 PM

Pincy: Just because something is a "medical condition" doesn't necessarily make it "harmful" or require that it be fixed.  Yes, we have the technology that allows us to understand how human reproduction works and to figure out why it doesn't work in some people.   Yes, we also have the technology to overcome some of the barriers when it doesn't work.  That still doesn't make it urgent that we fix it in all people who have it.


I see what you're saying. But how about in people who want it and who can provide for a family?

Pincy: Please explain the difference for us laypeople.


Well, you see, medically speaking small breasts are.....  :)

Pincy: Yes, we actually do to some extent.  We get to vote for people to represent us and we get to try and influence how they do their job representing us.


Fair enough. But if they spend money on sh*t you don't like, you can't immediately call them up and insist they stop.
 
2013-07-25 05:18:07 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: So if a woman determines that her quality of life will be improved with breast implants then we should subsidize those if she can't afford them?  My quality of life would be improved with more hair on my head.  Are you ready to subsidize by hair implants?

Small breasts aren't a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. One could also argue that the lifelong return of being a parent, outweighs the lifelong return of having large breasts, though that's debatable, I suppose.


Why is one woman's poor self image due to small breasts less important than another woman's poor self image due to infertility?  Quality of life means different things to different people.  If I tell you I'm going to commit suicide if society doesn't subsidize my hair transplants are willing to give me the same quality of life argument as infertile couples?

My point is that medical science exists to enhance and repair the quality of life of human beings. Procreation is a natural instinct and is good for society and communities, much like any other public health issue.

I don't think we as a species have had any problem procreating over the centuries.

That we would just tell infertile people that "life isn't fair" when we can help them is just unacceptable in my book.

I'm guessing that even the Canadian health care system has limits as to what it will pay for?  Or maybe I'm wrong?  But I would be surprised if I was.  There will always have to be choices made as to what society will pay for and what it won't because no one has unlimited resources.
 
2013-07-25 05:21:45 PM

Pincy: Aquapope: Pincy: I'm as libby lib as the next lib but the one thing I do not support is subsidizing methods to help people get pregnant.  If you can afford it then by all means be my guest.  I have nothing against IVF or whatever method you prefer.  But to me, not being able to reproduce is not a medical condition that requires treatment for the well being of the person afflicted.  It's not the equivalent of a "disease" or "disorder" that should be covered by insurance.  It's one of those "life isn't always fair" sorts of things.

Yeah, and muscular distrophy is one of those "life isn't always fair" things.  My dad died from a heart attack when I was 4, but "life isn't always fair", so I got over it.  If we all adopted the sometimes "life isn't always fair" ideology, there would be no modern medicine to take care of you when you turn 60 and your brain falls out of your ass.

So you are equating not being able to procreate with those disorders?  Interesting.


That's it?   That's all you got?  Your debatable ability to debate is debatable.
"Life isn't always fair"... your words.  You didn't restrict it to procreation, so I used that idiotic philosophy as it might apply to MD or heart disease.  Are you now saying that "Life isn't always fair" only applies to procreation?  What if I told you that my sister and her husband couldn't have kids...(life isn't always fair)... but they had a great doctor who stockpiled ova and came up with several viable blastocysts.  One of those blastocysts is almost 10 and named Steve.  But he can't hit a curve ball, so life isn't always fair.
 
2013-07-25 05:23:19 PM
I always thought that it was important for a sixty year old woman to have IVF.  Just think of her feelings!
 
2013-07-25 05:23:57 PM
Farking AUTPLAY DIE IN A FIRE
 
2013-07-25 05:24:52 PM
*autoplay

Seriously though, why are sites more and more inclined to not give you a choice on viewing a video once you click a link?

And why do people still pick links that have them?
 
2013-07-25 05:26:44 PM
Rev.K: medical conditions are what i say they are and their importance changes as i say they do. if you argue with me ill move the goalposts to make my argument make sense.
 
2013-07-25 05:31:12 PM

Rev.K: Pincy: Just because something is a "medical condition" doesn't necessarily make it "harmful" or require that it be fixed.  Yes, we have the technology that allows us to understand how human reproduction works and to figure out why it doesn't work in some people.   Yes, we also have the technology to overcome some of the barriers when it doesn't work.  That still doesn't make it urgent that we fix it in all people who have it.

I see what you're saying. But how about in people who want it and who can provide for a family?


Then they should probably save up enough money to cover the costs of IVF (or whatever method they chose).

You just used an example of a couple "who can provide for a family".  So now we only subsidize fertility treatments for people who can provide for a family?  What criteria do we use to determine that?

Yes, it sucks that a couple who really wants to have kids of their own can't and they don't have the financial resources to try fertility treatments.  But even you are tacitly admitting that you are willing to draw a line economically.  My line is just further up from yours.
 
2013-07-25 05:46:32 PM

ThatDarkFellow: f*ck anyone who wants stuff that costs money. My tax dollars are more important than improving people's lives.

 
2013-07-25 05:50:32 PM

Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: f*ck anyone who wants stuff that costs money at someone else's expense. My tax dollars are more important spent on ways to improve society ratherthan improving individual people's lives feelings.

 
2013-07-25 06:08:52 PM

Rev.K: Maggie_Luna: Because it'll hurt their feelings it shouldn't be done?

Why shouldn't it be done?

Because you don't think they should have kids?
Because you can't bear the thought of tax payers subsidizing it?
Because you consider it to be unnecessary?

Infertility is a medical condition. One that can be aided with medical science and technology to give a patient the quality of life they desire.

Now you might bring up a boob job as being similar, but a boob job is not a medical condition or abnormality like infertility. Not quite anyway.


And on the other side of the argument, people's tax dollars support all kinds of sh*t they don't like. But guess what? They don't get to pick and choose and neither do you.


It's more important supporting existing lives, not potential ones, with the resources at. If that means that you or I go without children but people with medical conditions we will never have live and the current foster system improves then yes, it should be. My tax dollars support that fiasco in Texas (yes I live in Texas) and I am not at all happy about that.

I have a benign fatty tumor in my arm that occasionally causes me pain. My life would be greatly improved by its removal but no one is suggesting tax payers pay for it.  It'd be more cosmetic at this point rather than anything else, unless something drastically changed. So I live with it.  The removal of that thing from my arm isn't necessary to the improvement of my health of quality of life.

Children are not necessary for life and I dare you to show me an example of one case where having a child is quite literally a matter of life or death.

My cousin and uncle struggled with fertility. I considered it unfortunate but not a necessity to their continued existence. My cousin has had two children (hers); my uncle has not (at all).  I am unable to imagine the emotional toll it could take, I'm not good at empathy with people but I still don't see this as a 'necessity' not when our health care system and tax system need to be reworked over all.
 
2013-07-25 06:51:27 PM

Pincy: Rev.K: ThatDarkFellow: If they want to save up then fine, but we shouldn't be throwing out cash just so someone can pump out more people. Maybe if there was some sort of stipulation where you forfeit any additional government aid afterwards then I could get on board with it.

Yes, that's a fine humanistic idea. Let's deny infertile couples the ability to have children because they might need society to help them out. Just end their dreams, or give them their dreams and cut off everything else.

You sound like a wonderfully compassionate human being.

Who is denying infertile couples from having children?  God?  Mother Nature?  Random chance?  I guess I didn't realize it is a basic human right of every person ever born to be able to procreate.  This is one of those "life isn't fair" sort of things.  Just like it's not fair I'm not a foot taller or better looking or have had this bad back since my teens that has kept me from fulfilling all of my childhood dreams.


I wept, cried, wailed to the Goddess and finally got some therapy (all of which helped to one degree or another) and am fine after fighting that biological clock.

Being infertile sucks little pickles, but it was my fate to be a step mom and nothing more.  I had over a decade to put it into place in my life, and while I'd never say that I am at peace, I am as I should be.  No, the government shouldn't pay for my urgent need to be pregnant and in my postie toasties, have stated how I have mitigated that responsibility at my own expense.  It sucks, but it is a responsible choice.

Now, I want a little baby to cuddle and love, but will have to wait another 10 years or so until the stepson is married and reproduces.

I am working on patience.
 
2013-07-25 07:21:54 PM
7 billion people.

We need widespread infertility, as in 85% over 100 years to fix overpopulation.  No other solution is as humane as infertility.  It needs to be natural and widespread.  All people who are alive deserve to stay that way, but we should not go out of our way to keep making more people when we know we have too many.  Selfish bastards.
 
2013-07-25 07:26:32 PM
Nothing wrong with being http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childfree
 
2013-07-25 07:34:31 PM
Hmmm...
More desperate hookers = Good.
More homeless bums = Bad.

I'm torn. Maybe we could use the bums and used up hookers to make soylent green?
 
2013-07-25 07:37:48 PM
I was never able to have children and it depressed me not one bit.  There are people who are meant to and those that aren't.  Back in the day, when people really wanted kids but never had any worked to build things for children.  See: Hershey.  Now they just want us to pay so they can have them.  Sigh.
 
2013-07-25 07:54:57 PM

Donnchadha: delsydsoftware: Donnchadha: Yeah.... that's a terrible idea.

What's wrong with adoption anyway? Why do you have to spend thousands of dollars to have your own biological offspring when there are existing children who need a home?

You should look up the cost of adoption sometime. IVF can be cheap in comparison, and you don't have some outside group reviewing your finances,housing,pets, etc to determine if you're a "fit" parent. Some friends of mine were looking into adoption versus IVF, and it was $10k cheaper to get IVF than to adopt ($15k vs $25k). Adoption is only cheaper if you are adopting from the 3rd world, and not everyone is into super-high-risk adoptions like that, where the child could have multiple issues or the adoption agency could be very sketchy.

I know that adoption isn't cheap and I didn't try to imply that it was cheaper than IVF, however what about costs to keep the kid in the foster system?

Furthermore, IVF is not a sure thing. What if it doesn't take on the first $15k attempt? Do it again? That's another $15k -- maybe slightly cheaper but not by a lot. I'd bet they would run all those screening tests again, since they just knocked your bodily hormones all out of whack once -- you're not the same person you were when you started.


There are financing deals in IVF clinics now that will charge one fee for several tries, and if the couple doesn't get a baby by the end of it, they get a significant part of their payment as a refund. Still doesn't cover other costs like meds etc.
 
2013-07-25 08:16:41 PM
I'm all for it, but(it's a big but) there needs to be regulations in place first! If having a child would put you into welfare bracket, no go. And if it would, you could fight it. If you fight the decision based and prove why you should be able to have ivf you have to have to use a government issued debit card that can be used only for food and necessities.

seriously though. How about we fix our healthcare system so that procedures aren't so ridiculously expensive? I know, I know, the politicians wouldn't be getting such shiny new things? Procedures like this are a fraction of the costs in other first world countries, and their doctors are still wealthy. What the fark?
 
2013-07-25 08:28:26 PM
The ability to have children is not a quality of life issue.  Having a non-cancerous benign mole on your face is.  Insurance won't pay for the latter and it shouldn't pay for the former.
 
2013-07-25 08:39:02 PM
 
2013-07-25 09:36:58 PM

FarkedOver: But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?


Who?
 
2013-07-25 10:11:58 PM

mjbok: The ability to have children is not a quality of life issue.  Having a non-cancerous benign mole on your face is.  Insurance won't pay for the latter and it shouldn't pay for the former.


^Sarcastic irony, well played
 
2013-07-25 10:19:00 PM

Mawson of the Antarctic: If the argument that poor couples are too poor to adopt and care for a child, then why would we trust them with their own if we can't trust them with another's? Also, reading a recent article on how it is pretty much impossible to rise above the class you were born into, wouldn't this doom future generations to poverty?

/not serious, but points have been raised


yes. which is precisely the point.
 
2013-07-25 11:10:34 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.


Maybe total fark should not be one of your monthly bills?
 
2013-07-25 11:13:06 PM

great_tigers: The My Little Pony Killer: bmwericus: Free birth control
Free abortions
Free hospital care
Free child care
Free food

I'm poor and I don't get any of this for free. Certainly not the abortions, birth control, or hospital care.

For the food, I could stop by the local food bank. That isn't the government paying for it though. It's the kindness of the citizens around me.

Maybe total fark should not be one of your monthly bills?


www.ct.gov

/its a double entendre
 
2013-07-26 04:07:29 AM

Nurglitch: Something I've occasionally wondered is why infertile people would rather undergo medical treatment rather than adopting a child.


ego
 
2013-07-26 08:46:02 AM

flondrix: king_nacho: There was also talk of a tax credit for out of pocket expenses

Does that mean letting people subtract (part of) the cost of IVF from their taxes, or from their pre-tax income?  The former is more extreme; I guess I was thinking they ment the latter.


I would assume the former, but i'm sure it will have a limit
 
2013-07-26 01:21:59 PM
How is a tax credit "funding IVF for the poor"?  You'd still have to have 5-6 figures you can just pay out for a treatment that may or may not work.  Really, it's more likely to be a tax credit for the rich.

The possibility of it being included in VA care is a little different, but the VA and Tricare do have to make some sort of lines in what they cover, and not everything they cover is strictly necessary for life.  It's reasonable for Congress to decide they want that to be part of those benefits, or that they don't.

Most of the thread would be more relevant if the article were talking about medicaid or something.
 
2013-07-26 07:49:22 PM

ErinPac: How is a tax credit "funding IVF for the poor"? You'd still have to have 5-6 figures you can just pay out for a treatment that may or may not work. Really, it's more likely to be a tax credit for the rich.


That's a good point.  You have to have the money in the first place to spend on IVF before you can get a tax credit for it.
 
Displayed 276 of 276 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report