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

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