Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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 News)   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
    More: Followup, Louise Brown, IVF, reproductive medicine, TRICARE, fertility treatments, CEO Barbara Collura, out-of-pocket costs  
•       •       •

3299 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jul 2013 at 11:00 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 coontil 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 12:26:19 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 275 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report