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 115
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-25 11:02:49 AM
13 votes:

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 10:29:57 AM
9 votes:
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 11:05:53 AM
8 votes:
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 10:41:56 AM
8 votes:
IVF is expensive. Poor couples who can't conceive naturally should adopt.
2013-07-25 11:02:25 AM
7 votes:
But if you are infertile, isn't that God's way of saying don't farking have kids?
2013-07-25 11:11:19 AM
6 votes:
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 11:14:56 AM
5 votes:
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 11:13:03 AM
5 votes:

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 11:12:16 AM
5 votes:
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 11:09:20 AM
5 votes:
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 11:04:15 AM
5 votes:

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 11:19:03 AM
4 votes:
Maybe we should make adoption easier then, if it so difficult and expensive.

/adopted.
// in the 1970s.
2013-07-25 11:11:57 AM
4 votes:
yeah if youre infertile.. no tax dollars should go towards fixing it.
2013-07-25 11:10:23 AM
4 votes:
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 11:04:28 AM
4 votes:

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 12:19:25 PM
3 votes:
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 12:14:38 PM
3 votes:

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 12:12:14 PM
3 votes:

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 11:49:25 AM
3 votes:

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 11:46:09 AM
3 votes:
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 11:20:17 AM
3 votes:

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 11:14:19 AM
3 votes:
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 11:08:25 AM
3 votes:
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 11:05:35 AM
3 votes:
Something I've occasionally wondered is why infertile people would rather undergo medical treatment rather than adopting a child.
2013-07-25 05:03:32 PM
2 votes:

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 04:16:00 PM
2 votes:

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 04:00:22 PM
2 votes:

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 03:39:29 PM
2 votes:
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 02:39:05 PM
2 votes:
Don't need no stinkin' Nipple Necks!

s8.postimg.org
2013-07-25 01:34:41 PM
2 votes:
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 01:01:37 PM
2 votes:
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 12:36:25 PM
2 votes:

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 12:20:10 PM
2 votes:
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 12:16:58 PM
2 votes:

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 12:08:09 PM
2 votes:
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 11:48:22 AM
2 votes:

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 11:36:06 AM
2 votes:
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 11:27:17 AM
2 votes:
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 11:21:25 AM
2 votes:
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 11:18:32 AM
2 votes:

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 11:14:16 AM
2 votes:

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 11:09:24 AM
2 votes:

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 11:05:48 AM
2 votes:
farm8.staticflickr.com

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

/EAT THE BABIES
2013-07-25 11:05:20 AM
2 votes:

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 11:04:10 AM
2 votes:
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 10:52:39 AM
2 votes:
fark off, subby.  Infertility is an illness, and should be covered as such.
2013-07-26 04:07:29 AM
1 votes:

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


ego
2013-07-25 09:36:58 PM
1 votes:

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


Who?
2013-07-25 08:28:26 PM
1 votes:
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 07:21:54 PM
1 votes:
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 06:51:27 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:50:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:18:07 PM
1 votes:

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 05:08:56 PM
1 votes:

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 05:05:58 PM
1 votes:

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 05:03:29 PM
1 votes:

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 04:59:36 PM
1 votes:

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 04:53:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:05:38 PM
1 votes:
also... "not farking" is a perfectly valid option to avoid pregnancy, so we probably ought to quit subsidizing contraception.
2013-07-25 04:02:44 PM
1 votes:
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 03:53:06 PM
1 votes:
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 03:51:30 PM
1 votes:

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 03:43:16 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:48 PM
1 votes:

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 03:26:20 PM
1 votes:
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 03:26:12 PM
1 votes:

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 03:15:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:56:33 PM
1 votes:

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 01:44:21 PM
1 votes:

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 01:32:33 PM
1 votes:
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 01:23:02 PM
1 votes:

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 01:11:37 PM
1 votes:
Sure, $100-200K is totally worth it to create a new human, because there are so few of us.
2013-07-25 01:04:24 PM
1 votes:

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 12:57:48 PM
1 votes:

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 12:47:27 PM
1 votes:

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 12:42:10 PM
1 votes:
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 12:40:56 PM
1 votes:

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 12:38:01 PM
1 votes:
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 12:28:07 PM
1 votes:

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 12:20:39 PM
1 votes:

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 12:18:21 PM
1 votes:

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 12:17:45 PM
1 votes:

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 12:15:34 PM
1 votes:

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 12:12:48 PM
1 votes:
Hey Trollmitter/dumbfarkers - did you read the whole article? It's for VETERANS. The proposed funding is for the VETERANS ADMINISTRATION.
2013-07-25 12:10:08 PM
1 votes:

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 11:56:15 AM
1 votes:

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 11:56:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:56:05 AM
1 votes:

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 11:48:27 AM
1 votes:
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 11:42:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:40:26 AM
1 votes:
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 11:40:11 AM
1 votes:
Well I've gotta admit, it's a great way to recruit future Democrats before they are even born...
2013-07-25 11:36:58 AM
1 votes:
Wonder how they will feel when the first lesbian couple applies for some of that money.
2013-07-25 11:35:11 AM
1 votes:

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 11:33:09 AM
1 votes:
If they can't have kids, isn't their marraige void?
2013-07-25 11:33:07 AM
1 votes:
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 11:32:55 AM
1 votes:

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 11:30:25 AM
1 votes:
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 11:30:03 AM
1 votes:
If poor people deserved stuff, then they would have the money to buy it themselves.
2013-07-25 11:28:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:26:32 AM
1 votes:

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 11:25:47 AM
1 votes:

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 11:21:41 AM
1 votes:
sfist.com
2013-07-25 11:16:59 AM
1 votes:
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 11:14:22 AM
1 votes:
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 11:14:14 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:25 AM
1 votes:

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 11:11:37 AM
1 votes:
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 11:06:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:05:03 AM
1 votes:

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


Fixed.
2013-07-25 11:02:52 AM
1 votes:
So is the headline trolling?

DRTFA, more outraged over the autoplay video.
2013-07-25 11:02:05 AM
1 votes:
Eesh. We reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally could have used some Congressional funding.
2013-07-25 10:46:29 AM
1 votes:
Sybarite: This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

2.bp.blogspot.com
2013-07-25 10:33:23 AM
1 votes:
This is not he future that science fiction promised me.

www.centerforhumanreprod.com
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report