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  
•       •       •

3269 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



276 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 276 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report