OK, I took some liberty with the title of this post by Margaret Wente in the Globe and Mail this week. That matters not. Because if the Infertility Lobby has its way, pressure will be brought to bear on us (by that I mean taxpayers in Ontario, Canada) to pay for In-vitro. And as a child-free woman it makes me want to shout No!
The right To bear Children and of course we’ll pay
If you’re feeling a vague sense of deja vu, it’s because we’ve heard all these sneaky arguments before, only in the UK.
The fertility lobby has been hard at work. That’s the lobby that continues to encourage desperate women and their equally desperate partners to have a baby, and that it’s completely right to mortgage yourself to the hilt – or sell everything you have to have a child. Because infertility is a disease rivaling and (as important as) any terminal disease such as cancer. So everything must be done to fight infertility. Only this time it seems to be taking a new tack. The infertility lobby in Ontario is now putting pressure on the already cash-strapped Provincial Government to fund infertility treatments for women up to the age of 42.
Why? – well, because the woman’s been building her career. When she settles on a guy (note the settling… time to nest) they then have to save to buy a house. That takes time so when (shock, horror) she wakes up one day to being 42 she finds she can’t have kids.
Because she must have kids (it’s been in “the plan” ever since she was so-high) time to go high-tech. AKA In-vitro treatment. But, as Ms Wente says, in-vitro treatment doesn’t come cheap. $10,000 a pop is probably at the low end, and success rates, as we know are abysmally low. We’re talking some serious change here.
Who pays for her to get pregnant?
As Ms Wente says:
“If the infertility lobby has its way, we do. It’s putting heavy pressure on Ontario’s government to fund in-vitro fertilization for women up to 42. It has a battery of arguments for why this is in the public interest: Having children is a basic human right. Infertility is a disease, and treating it is so expensive that people shouldn’t have to pay for it themselves (even though many do). Finally, public funding of fertility treatments will save the system money. “
“This task force, which included people from every conceivable interest group, lacked only someone to speak for the silent, suffering, taxpaying public.”
The Fertility Industry is going further however by saying that having a family is a human right. And as a human right, taxpayers should pay for it.
It’s a “reproductive health disease,” says the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada.
It’s to blame for falling birth rates… no mention that perhaps more women are simply deciding not to have children. And it’s “terrible emotional anguish.”
Fertility specialist Marjorie Dixon says that “women feel “cheated” because, even though they pay taxes, the government won’t help them.”
Right. So that means I, who has decided not to have children must see even more of my taxes go to help women have in-vitro? Pardon me, but that is a load of cobblers. Though Quebec has caved and Britain (where I’m actually from) and Australia already fund in-vitro I sincerely hope we speak up in Ontario where pressure is being brought to follow suit according to Ms Wente.
From the comments (you can imagine the sharp divisions in the 300 plus comments) it’s clear that it’s not just childfree people who object to being the purse strings for women who think having IVF is their right. The tax-paying public has a right to be alarmed.
As Ms Wente says:
“The causes of infertility are complex, of course, and people’s choices to postpone reproduction until middle age are just one part of the story. But among the chief customers for fertility treatment are educated women who’ve been deluded into thinking that technology can help them whenever they want a child.”
I agree that while having a family is a human right. Having a family under any circumstances is not. Especially where my hard earned taxes would be going to pay for IVF. It’s not a human right for the government to pay for your IVF. And for those who predictably trot out that infertility is equivalent to a terminal disease, such as cancer… they are still out to lunch.
Multiple pregnancies are almost certain. Multiple implants are too. If having a child under any circumstances is what a woman wants to do then let her… but on her own dime, not money that should go on saving lives or something less self-serving.
As Wente says:
“If we really want to reduce the anguish of infertility, here are a couple of cheap ideas. Stop peddling phony hopes to desperate couples almost certainly doomed to fail (no matter whose money they’re spending). And post the basic statistics about fertility and pregnancy in big red letters in every doctor’s waiting room. I can’t tell you how many women would have acted differently if they’d only known.”
You probably don’t want to wade through all 353 comments ( I couldn’t read more than a few), but there are a few voices of reason among the pro-natal suspects.
Let’s hope the Fertility lobby does not get its way here. I hope there is a public lobby for those of us who oppose the public funding of IVF with our tax dollars.
Your thoughts?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }
Oh, my God.
This makes me so unbelievably angry. And sick. I thought the whole reason for waiting is that they would have more money and be more established and be more… well, like grown-ups?
What happens if they go through five rounds and they fail? Do they pay it back?
I live in Ontario. This is money taken away from my transit system, roads and infrastructure, and services. It’s infuriating.
I really hope that the US doesn’t try to pull this shit with our health system. First off its hypocritical, many of the same pro-natalists are anti-abortion–but way more fertilized eggs are wasted in fertility clinics than abortion clinics.
Second, we are strapped already. Our country is very unhealthy, with a lot of extreme obesity (I am not talking your garden variety plump or stout here), and matched with excessive health care costs, we will need to focus every penny we have on actual health problems and promoting healthy choices. A healthy choice for one, is if you want to have bio-children, have them while your body is still in its reproductive stage, not pre-menopausal. Sure you can wait until you are a little more stable financially to have kids, but don’t wait forever and then expect the taxpayers to pay for your lack of foresight about basic reproductive facts.
Personally I have given up to expect ANYTHING from our selected government, I simply dont waste my energy on them. As CF I can ignore many of the brainless suggestions our decision-makers bless us with.
I think IVF should be offered like any other healthcare-service. BUT, I absolutely believe it should be an upper age-limit if you want the tax-payers to cover the cost. Maybe they should be “forced” to become foster-parents for some time, just to get a taste of parenting and to pay something back to society?
I don’t live in Canada, but if they ever tried anything like that in the US, I’d be pretty angry. If a woman has decided to pursue her career until her 40s and THEN wants to have children…well, that’s her choice and she should live with the consequences.
I agree that perhaps the fact that fertility decreases as you get older should be more publicized, but even so, taxpayers should not have to pay for your right to have a baby. That should come out of your own pocket.
As a veteran of IVF, I wanted to chime in on this notion that all IVF patients are women who delayed childbearing for their careers.
I started trying to get pregnant just after my 29th birthday. Ultimately, we had to turn to IVF due to male factor infertility – not my age (I am now 34). Indeed, there are many, many reasons why IVF is called for that have nothing to do with advanced maternal age including uterine anomalies, male factor infertility, thyroid issues, premature ovarian failure (we’re talking women in their 20s and 30s – not 40s), etc.
As for the increased rates of multiples, IUI – intrauterine insemination – is actually much more of a crap shoot when it comes to having high order multiples because drugs are used to stimulate ovary production, but there is no control over how many actually are inseminated or how many of the resulting embryos implant. With IVF, you can control the number of embryos that are transferred (not implanted – that happens later) to help to control the rate of multiples.
I understand the frustration and sense of unfairness that taxpayers should be asked to pay for IVF. But, consider that for many women, it is being used for problems that are outside of their control, not due to delays in childbearing due to external factors such as careers.
Mrs X, I understand where you are coming from, I really do, but the government should not be funding IVF for people who desperately want kids, whether it’s for women who purposely delayed having children or women like yourself. It bothers me that people who cannot have kids without medical intervention, can’t just count their blessings for what they do already have ie. why can’t couples have the attitude “Well we tried, it didn’t work, at least we have each other”? If you can’t have biological kids of your own, what is so wrong with enjoying nieces and nephews and friends’ kids or donating time to a charity/organisation such as what we have in Australia, one called Big Brother Big Sister program, whereby adults donate time to children in a “big sibling” capacity? I’m not a religious person but I truly believe that infertility is nature’s form of population control. You could also become a foster carer Mrs X, but please don’t have the entitlement attitude that the government should be paying for your IVF.
What if you don’t have any nieces of nephews to enjoy? If you’ve never wanted children then it’s truly extremely hard to even begin to understand how not being able to have a child can hurt so much and leave you feeling so very very empty. Donating time to an organisation such as Big Brother Big Sister does nothing to control the urge to become a Mother.
I count my blessings everyday for my wonderful soulmate but that doesn’t make up for my overwhelming desire to become a Mother and not being able to (I’ve suffered multiple miscarriages), especially when you see crack addicts and 15 year old girls have babies and not really care about them.
If infertility is natures form of population control how come the weak and crappy DNA carrying people of the world are the ones that find it so easy to get knocked up and manage to produce and produce? Isn’t it natures way for the strong to survive, so therefore shouldn’t they be the ones getting pregnant?
I understand that it can be heartbreaking to be unable to conceive a child when you desperately want one. Nevertheless, and as harsh as this may sound, children are not a medical necessity. Why should taxpayers pay for something you *want*?
This is unbelievable. The entitlement these people have is nuts.
If money grew on trees. Sure, fund IVF, fund braces, plastic surgery, hair restoration, etc. My parents couldn’t afford dental care for me when I was a kid here in Ontario… I went years without seeing a dentist. Forget about brace to fix my bite issues. Once I was out of college, I got a job and paid for it myself… it was important to me and my health. Paying for dental cleanings, etc should be payed for before IVF. There is a huge link to heart health and dental health. That would probably save OHIP more but I understand that the system is limited.
I don’t know how many of you have had a relative or friend go through a serious illness (cancer) lately but, if you have, you’ll know that our medical system is hurting.
I have read a lot of this ontario report that the pro-IVF funders refer to and I really disagree with a most of it. I think a lot of the “saving” can be achieved by laying down tight restrictions on these fertility clinics NOT by funding IVF. I disagree with funding private international adoptions anymore than they do now (also mentioned in this report). The one thing I do agree with in the report is increasing the funding to adopt children (especially older difficult to place kids) out of Ontarios foster care system.
The stats on IVF success are not good. So LOTS of our tax dollars will be washed down the drain if this funding goes through. I think the big issue for a lot of these couples is that they KNOW these stats. If they were guaranteed a mini me out of all this, they probably wouldn’t have a problem paying. But they know the stats… they know they’ll probably have to have many rounds to even have a chance at success… and they’d rather it be our money wasted then there own. Because really… whats 10K for one round in the long term. Problem is… its not 10K… it 30 and 40K++++. I really can’t think of any non-life threatening problems that OHIP will pay that much money towards with only a 20-30% chance of success.
People need to get up in arms about this. The fertility clinics would love this to go through and they are pushing for it. More money in their deep pockets. It will open the flood gates. They can’t discriminate on age either. It will be challenged and over turned… and we’ll be paying for IVF on 50 year olds.
Just a note, I have nothing against IVF. I’m against funding it.
Very true.
Many of the pro-IVF funders will use the argument that we pay for abortion and how awful that is, so we should be paying for IVF.
They are painfully unaware of the history of this. How many women have died all over the world in the past (and still today to a lesser extent mostly in other countries) getting back alley abortions. How many family were left without mothers because they couldn’t afford to feed another mouth, so they had an abortion how ever they could. Imagine what some teenagers would resort to if they found out they were pregnant and you had to pay for abortions. We NEED to pay for abortion (in addition to keeping it legal) to avoid this. It is a life and death issue IMO. I support OHIP in paying for this.
I also agree on putting more money into prevention and teaching about health. We are strapped and need to use the money OHIP has wisely.
ack… I’m new at posting here (I’ve read for about a year but never have time to post). My previous post was a reply to sarasuperid’s comments. Sorry!
Oh, and there was me thinking Canada had a bit more sense than the Brits in this.
I live in England and I am sick of the fact that IVF treatment is funded by the NHS.
I lost a relative to cancer last year. When he was diagnosed he was ofered treatment as part of a trial, not funded through the NHS but through the trial. It gave him a whole 12 months extra of good quality life before he really declined. The treatment the NHS can afford to offer would have given him about 3-6 months to live. With the expensive trial medication he lived for 20 months. How anyone can say that funding IVF treatment is a better use of resources that funding cancer treatment, or dementia treatment or any other life threatening horrific illness is beyond me.
I think that if people are infertile, whether through age, or illness or just “one of those things”, they should just suck it up and get on with life. If they have the resources themselves to pay for treatment then fine, go for it, but why should anyone else be expected to pay? The world is overpopulated anyway, we don;t need each and every person to reproduce. Has no one considered the fact that if someone is infertile it may be for good reason – that perhaps their offspring would suffer from illness or disability, or because the womans body couldnt support a pregnancy. I recall some fugures being published in the UK last year showing that children conceived through IVF had much higher rates off serious illness and disability.
I know what I say may sound callous to some – probably those so desperate to see a miniature version of themselves trotting around, but I just don;t see why the taxpayer should be expected to foot the bill. If you cannot afford to pay or the fertility treatment how do you expect to pay all the costs involved in raising a child – oh, right yeah, through benefits and welfare.
I really cannot understand why people fell they have to biologically reproduce – why not adopt if you want to raise a child so much?
And I cannot understand the religious people who say that it is wrong to have abortions, yet will quikcly say that it is ok to provide fertility treatment – what if “god” (I am an atheist btw) expressly didnt want you to have kids, hence the infertility? (rather than just, you know, bad genes or whatever)
Oh, this topic does really wind me up. GRRRR and stuff.
I love how the “why not adopt” line gets trotted out time after freakin time in the comments section of these articles.
Adoption is not as easy as Angelina Jolie makes it look. We can’t afford to adopt (cost of up to $50 000) and by the time the time frame is over, DH would be too old for us to qualify, so NO adoption is NOT the answer to Infertility.
We claim nothing from the government and never have but would we appreciate a bit of help in trying to have a child of our own, fuck yes…after all we pay our taxes so why the hell not?
In this day and age, with the human species in a position to squeeze every other form of life off the planet (with the exception, of course, of the cockroach: the one thing more survival-minded than us), having children is not a right. It’s a privilege.
Unfortunately, our planet-sized egos don’t allow for such thinking. Between the IVF-postponer crowd and the millions of people pumping unwanted kids into our overburdened welfare system (I read court cases for a living, and if I had just a nickel for every termination-of-parental-rights case I see every night, I’d be able to retire fifteen years early), we’ll choke ourselves, and our society, into extinction. Of course, we’ll choke all the lions and tigers and bears into extinction first. It’s our reproductive “right,” after all.
Foot the bill for your own IVF, wannabreeds.
I’m not a fan of IVF, either. If you can’t have children, there’s usually a pretty good biological reason. I wish governments would offer incentives for adoption rather than IVF – not necessarily money, but simplifying the process to help make it a more attractive option. I really detest the attiude that any child you have must be biologically yours.
I throw up a little every time I hear a government talk about how having children is a basic human right. I think it would be more accurate to say that for some people it is a desire.
Wouldn’t it be more to the point to address the basic human rights of the children that are already here and earmark tax money to ensure that they have adequate food and shelter, access to education and best case scenario, nurturing homes?
I came here to post a comment, but Mrs X has said most of what I’d like to say, and said it very well.
Let me make another point here. Having children is neither a right nor a privilege. It is one of the most primal instincts animals have.
While many of us would be more than happy to adopt, it is simply not that easy. Private adoptions are incredibly expensive (more so than IVF) and there are not many healthy (physically and/or emotionally) children available for public adoption. The adoption process is also lengthy and invasive – every single aspect of your life is laid bare for judgement.
And before you call us selfish for not adoptiong special-needs children, consider that we don’t call teachers selfish for not going into special education. We don’t call wealthy fertile people selfish for not adopting these children when they have the resources to take care of them. Special-needs children are of course a blessing, but read up on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or Detachment Disorder and ask yourself what taking that on would do to your family.
As for the ‘I don’t want children, why should I pay for someone else to conceive’ arguement, this is hooey. I don’t smoke, so should I pay fewer taxes because I’ll never have to call the fire department because I fell asleep with a cigarette on the sofa? I don’t drive, so should I not have to pay for highways? We live in a society, people. My husband’s sperm has the wrong shape to do its job, although the DNA is just fine (as evidenced by my growing belly right now). Folks with sickle cell anemia have the same issue, different cell. It’s a medical problem, not an issue with putting off child rearing so that I could be a career woman or travel or whatever.
Finally, this is one of the most eloquent posts I’ve found on this issue that says it much better than I could:
http://www.inciid.org/forum/showthread.php?p=209220&mode=linear#post209220
IF is tremendously misunderstood – given that the rates of IF are between 8%-12% this means that 88%-92% of people have not, and will not, experience the heartache of being unable to conceive when they want to. Having children is a rite of passage that most take for granted – building a family is also the way in which human beings all over the world negotiate their lives – whether they are gay or straight, adopt or have biological children – building community is essential to our sense of purpose and desire to give and receive love.When this fails to happen it forces us to question much of what we believed about ourselves and our relationships, indeed the world. IF is an exclusionary struggle in the sense that it leaves its sufferers out of a universal story. It is invisible in that people do not directly see your wounds. It is stigmatizing in that is calls into question one’s sense of identity. It is isolating in that it keeps one separate from the parallel journey that the majority of people at the same stage of life are on.
Yes, Beth, we live in a society. That’s why it’s okay that money from all of us goes into things that one way or the other are for the cmmon good (e.g. infrastructure, health care, etc.) So, even though I am childfree, I don’t mind that my tax money goes to kindergarden, playgrounds, cultural and leisure activities for kids, chepaer or free entry for kids in museums and such, cheaper tickets for buses, trains, etc. (Although, why I have to pay MORE tax than parents, I don’t see), or, for that matter, to highways, even though I don’t drive either. (your smoking example doesn’t pull off, btw, it woud ony work, if smking was the ONLY thing that could ever casue a fire, logic fail!). But I fail to see where IVF comes into the picture. The need to have sex is a very deeply routed biological drive. So, if I can’t find a sex partner, will the tax payers give me money to go to a prostitue? Or what if I can’t satisfy the basic human need for love and companionship? Pay to hypnotize someone into loving me? Just because someone has a deep desire for something, doesn’t mean they are entitled to it. Some things are called “that’s just life”. ANd, of course, the most important argument, as has been said before, it draws funds away from really important areas. I’d rather the money was spent on life-saving treatments, a good educational system, culture.
I’m in Quebec and it pisses me off to no end. We hear each week that our province is strapped for cash, we live above our means, the hospitals are millions and millions of $ in deficit, schools are underfinanced and overpopulated, but we have to pay for idiots to reproduce. It’s expensive, with low success rate, kids have lots of health problems… mhmm let’s go for it! It’s a no brainer! How could we go wrong? Why not pave the roads in gold while we’re wasting money? If you can’t afford IVF, you can’t afford the 200k$ it will cost you to raise a child till adulthood. Simple as that. Having babies is not a right, no more than being a 6 feet blond top model. If nature decided you can’t have them naturally, do something else. It’s not a disease. You will not die. You simply just won’t get what you want, and because you can’t have it, you cry, just like a child. Really mature.
“but we have to pay for idiots to reproduce”
Mrs Ogre thats where you have it wrong. The “idiots” don’t seem to appear to need any help reproducing, they all seem to get knocked up with ease time after time.
Either you don’t have children or you’ve never struggled with infertility because your last lines are just so cold and perhaps shows that you dont have a beating heart in your chest….
“If nature decided you can’t have them naturally, do something else. It’s not a disease. You will not die. You simply just won’t get what you want, and because you can’t have it, you cry, just like a child. Really mature.”
The Frugal, everyone needs to learn coping skills in life. There are so many abused, abandoned and neglected children who could use a good home. I’ll reserve my sympathy for them. How cold is that?
Being infertile doesn’t threaten your life or your health. I am sure it can make people feel absolutely miserable, but nobody comes into this world with a guarantee of happiness. If childlessness is a stigmatising state, then let the stigma be challenged. If people feel excluded due to their infertility, then let the reasons for that exclusion be challenged. It is not necessary to have a child in order to have a productive and fulfilling life. The whole idea of having a child because “it’s what you do” or “because everyone else is doing so” is one of the most damaging myths in our society.
I wanted to write a long, comprehensive reply to Mrs. X and Beth, but I think I need some time (a few days) to get my eye-rolling under control. But I still wanted to say this:
I have Asperger’s Syndrome. Long story short, it means that there are many things that I cannot do, since stress causes me to become depressed and eventually psychotic. My first psychosis was in gymnasiet (I live in Denmark so we have different education terms, this is roughly equivalent to high school). I had managed to make it through my first year (barely), but a few months into my second year, I cracked. I had to leave gymnasiet and was about 16 with no real education or prospects.
So, what did I do? I researched (with the help of my parents) other ways to get a decent education, and eventually managed to graduate with a very nice set of grades from something we call VUC (in short, I managed to get the same exam by taking it a few courses at a time).
So, my high school days over, I enrolled at a higher education (computer science), only to encounter the same problem as in gymnasiet. This time, fortunally, I managed to stop in time and avoided psychosis. But it seemed, once again, that I was left with no education and no prospects.
So, what did I do this time? I took some time off to get back on my feet and am now in part-time (unpaid) employment until next summer where I will enroll in a more practical education (I’m gonna be a baker!).
Is there a theme here?
I know from bitter experience how much it sucks to be less able to live a normal life due to circumstances beyond your control. But in my case, I didn’t sit back and demand that the state should cut back on already undefunded hospitals, public transportation systems or road repair plans and spend all that money on ME so that I could have a normal life.
Being infertile (or autistic or whatever) SUCKS, no doubt about it, but as Soldatka pointed out, no one is guaranteed happiness in life. If, for some reason, you are unable to do the things you feel are necessary for a “normal” life, then it is your responsibility to adapt. You may have to research alternatives, ways to compensate for your shortcomings, or you may have to reevaluate what you thought consituted a “normal” life. The world does not owe you happiness, and it is not the responsibility of the average citizen to fund your adding to overpopulation.
PS: In case anyone is trying to draw comparisons between infertility/my Asperger’s and SERIOUS disabilities like blindness or being in a wheelchair… FUCK YOU! No one has died from not having a child. If my Asperger’s or your infertility prevents you from leaving your house, reading, making sure you survive then it is my/your own damn fault. Priorities people! /rant
I have to agree with Asp and Soldatka here. I can use an example that I’ve experienced – a long term chronic illness. Very little funding going into working out how to treat it, but it doesn’t kill anyone, and people can bitch at me about how there should be more funding for it but I don’t agree. It’s not killing people, sure it’s making lives miserable but *a lot* of money does go into helping people cope with it, and many people cope well because of that help, the vast majority go on to recover.
Life is full of uncertainty, and because of that there need to be choices available. However, choices should always remain as a choice which is undertaken by the individual, largely if not entirely at their own cost (I don’t necessarily include things like cancer treatment in that one) with them having researched it and being aware of the pit falls. In Britain they’ve considered a number of times making people contribute to the cost of their treatment on the NHS for things such as surgery relating to obesity and lung cancer caused by smoking. That’s why I don’t understand that IVF is available on the NHS. If I were in the US, I’d be happy to pay for health insurance just as soon as everyone that has kids or was having IVF was making an active contribution to my sterilisation. I’m sure people having IVF would say that sterilisation isn’t essential – neither is IVF. Not having a kid isn’t going to kill you, for some people who have tried other forms of contraception and are left with sterilisation as the last resort having a kid might kill them.
I remember there being people on the news in Britain saying that they thought IVF should be available on the NHS because they couldn’t afford to pay for it, even though they had a kid already. There was a case in Britain recently were a doctor who already had a child killed herself after IVF was unsuccessful. I have to say, those who want IVF but already have a kid make my blood curdle, especially when they want someone else to pay for it. Geez, life isn’t perfect, life sometimes sucks a lot, you can’t always have what you want. That doesn’t give anyone the right to make everyone else pay because they feel short changed out of life. Get over yourself and find something fulfilling to do with your life. It’s not all about you and what you want, sometimes you have to see the greater good, which is not pissing away millions of tax payer’s money on a treatment that in most cases fails. Not to mention the recent research which suggests that children born through IVF will be sicker, and much more likely to be infertile themselves.
Some people really need a reality check and to realise that you can’t have everything you want. Like Mrs. Ogre says, that’s an exceptionally childish attitude to have.
I would just like to YES! to everything that Dorian Gray and Asp have already mentioned.
Asp – I have a very mild form of Asperger’s that makes day to day life a little bit challenging – I was only very recently diagnosed at 30 (I’m female, btw). In a curious way, I was delighted to find out that I’m not ‘officially not normal’ (ie not psychologically atypical) – it made so much sense in so many ways.
I suffered from severe depression pre-diagnosis and even worried about my mental state: I couldn’t understand why I didn’t see the world as others did and was even concerned that I might be a sociopath. Like many other peopleon the ADS, I am highly intelligent and prone to over analysis and compulisve bahviours and I was extremely worried that the way I saw the world was somehow wrong and may cause damage to others.
Now that I have that diagnosis, I can relax a little and allow myself to accept that, while my perception of the world may not be ‘classical’, it is MINE and there is no reason to try to excuse or justify my bahviour. I use various coping strategies to try to adapt and adopt and most times, I can pass for ‘normal’ .
The point of my argument is that if I, as a neuro-sociologically ‘differentiated’ individual can modify my behaviour to fit in with the world at large (even though this may occasionally cause me distress, alarm or discomfort), I don’t see why other people bloody well can’t.
NEWSFLASH: Life doesn’t necessarily work out the way you want it to. I, personally would be delighted – I would do a little happy dance – if we could eradicate, once and for all, loud, unexpected noises; people talking to you while not facing you
(I depend heavily on what I have learned about body language and facial expression to interpret meaning and cannot read subtle BL etc in the way that non-ADS people can); bright light; and people that fuck up your routine by cancelling at the last minute or changing plans at a second’s notice.
Unfortunately, none of the above is likely to happen. Therefore, I have to apply myslf to learn, adopt and adapt.
My condition affects my life (and the lives of others around me) on a day to day basis. I have learned (and am learning) to condition myself to the fact that life does not always go my way – no matter how difficult I find it – and that there will always be people who find my condition difficult to accept and/or coexist with.
As such, if I can get over this, then why the fuck do people who can’t have kids think they’re so fucking special? I have a genuine condition that affects my ability to interact with LIFE on a normal basis. They lack the ability to produce a genetic replica. Pardon me for sounding harsh, but somebody call the waaaahmbulance.
FACT: you will not die. Nor will the human race. Life goes on. If you feel unfairly maligned or shunned, then get some new friends. Possibly without kids.
If you happen to have a lot energy, time and mone, then why not invest this in something that benefits the many? Volunteerwork, local community politics, mentoring etc? Intelligent,committed people are almost always welcome in any form of the above – why not get involved, rather than just replicating your genes?
Biology is not destiny. You may ‘want’, but it doesn’t mean you get. Grow up and accept this.
If one is having children to simply fit into a pro-natal society or to participate in a rite of passage, I would say that is not a very compelling argument to present to taxpayers.
First off–needs for group affiliation are truly not a taxpayer issue and cannot be compared to your tax dollars paying for infrastructure. Society cannot function without infrastructure. People can function, and indeed thrive, without having children. No society can function without roads, fire departments, schools and hospitals. If a particular individual needs a child to function or to be happy then that is unique character/personal issue. I would also ask why you would want or need to be accepted by members of a group whose requirement it is for you to be just like them. Again, that is a character issue, not a tax issue.
Also more than half of marriages, another much-heralded rite of passage, end in divorce, which undoubtedly affects the emotional, psychological state of children. As you say, there are seemingly few, if any, competency and quality, financial, and home status requirements for people who choose to pursue IVF. How do I, as a taxpayer, know that the child who I am helping to bring into the world via my financial support will be adequately cared for and will be given a decent home by parents who have a stable and loving relationship?
If a percentage of my tax dollars goes toward paying for my local public schools, I can have a say in how they are run by attending community meetings and by advocating for higher teacher pay and more rigorous educational standards with my local assemblywoman. Will I be invited into the homes of the people whose IVF I help to pay for to see if they are properly caring for the child I helped them to conceive? I don’t see that happening.
As an example, I know of a couple who live in a studio apartment. They decided to go through IVF and have his parents pay for it. Three rounds in the U.S. $75k–no pregnancy. They then went overseas, another 30,000 Euro and conception. They brought the child back to live in one room, where he remains at the age of 18 mos. They sneak the child in and out of the building, because it is an SRO and as such is not zoned for and does not allow children. I won’t even go into detail about another woman in the same building who lives in 400 square ft with TWO children and a bathroom down the hall that she shares with three other tenants–she lives on welfare). Why don’t the IVF parents move? They can’t afford a bigger apartment in the same neighborhood, which is the one they prefer to live in. HUH?? Initially, when they tried to adopt, their living situation did not pass muster with the adoption agency–for good reason. You may say that cases like this and Octo-mom are statistical outliers, however, I would argue that if you cannot afford IVF out-of-pocket, without someone else paying for it, whether it be insurance or mom and dad, you probably cannot afford to properly care for a child. Children born to parents who do not have adequate financial resources to care for them can suffer numerous physical and psychological indignities, including inadequate housing, education, diet and health care–to name only a few.
I would be extremely skeptical of the parenting qualifications of someone who is not willing to undergo the scrutiny required by adoption agencies–and even more skeptical of someone who tried to adopt and was not approved. Of course it is necessary for your life to become an open book–because it’s not all about you–it’s about an abandoned or orphaned child going to the best possible home. If you really want something, you have be willing to accept the challenges that accompany achieving your goal, and be able to support the requirements inherent in achieving your goal
I will gladly pay tax dollars to help match a homeless child through adoption with people who have been evaluated as competent and financially stable. But my tax dollars will never be earmarked for adoption because adoption is not supported and promoted to governments by greedy MD’s and their equally greedy lobbyists who want insurance to pay for their far from fail safe procedures. Government sponsored IVF opens an entirely new source of cash flow for them. Whenever someone is lobbying to get insurance to cover something, 9 out of 10 times if you follow the money trail, it has less to do with fulfilling “basic human rights” and more to do with someone lining their pockets.
It would also be interesting to know how many of those lobbyists who aren’t MD’s are members of, or are backed by, fundamentalist religions–whose mission it is to multiply and multiply and multiply in order to create more of their particular brand of believers for their particular brand of God in preparation for the rapture that will leave the non-believers behind to burn in eternal hell-fire.
Which brings me to the alleged community aspect of IVF, Many pro- lifers support IVF but are virulently anti-gay and until recently (the last thirty years) openly discriminated against blacks and other minorities. Their community building only extends to people who think just like them, look just like them and pursue the same life style and goals they pursue. Sounds like a community of fascists to me.
And finally, as others here have pointed out with great eloquence, life isn’t fair. We all must play the cards we are dealt to the best of our abilities. That’s called being a grown up. If you are not a grown up you shouldn’t even think about having children.
“Stop peddling phony hopes to desperate couples almost certainly doomed to fail (no matter whose money they’re spending). ” I definitely agree with this. I mean, they had enough with the circumstance. Don’t give them false hopes just to earn from it. It’s so unfair.
Wow. Where to begin.
I have yet to read anywhere that infertility was actually said to be “equivalent” to terminal disease. There was a reputable study which showed the emotional impact and stress levels of the disease of infertility was similar to the level that cancer patients experience, but that isn’t saying it was equivalent to a terminal disease. The reality is that infertility is actually a disease, and it is a significant one regardless of some outdated societal myths and assumptions or that it doesn’t seem “important” in some people’s view because it has no relevance to them. The fact is that our health care system that we all pay for, including infertile person’s, does not just cover “life saving” health care needs, it covers everything from minor discomforts, all the way up to emergency life saving care. Quality of life and pain reduction are treated all the time. Beyond that we cover voluntary choices too…we cover HEALTHY voluntary pregnancy care and delivery, we cover elective abortions, and we cover tubal ligations and vasectomies-those are all for non-disease health issues that actually are about personal choice. Infertile people don’t want “you” or anyone paying for them to have children…they want our collective system to include them and their disease just as anyone else’s health care needs are covered under the system that they also pay for. I don’t particularly care to pay for elective abortions, or for a person’s car crash injuries due to their careless driving (speeding, cell phone/texting, road rage, alcohol use), or for a smokers lung cancer, etc… but that is the nature of a collective system such as we have.
It is mind boggling why people continue to frame the infertility issue as being about “if a woman wants a child she can pay for it” or supposedly about some “choice”. Having an involuntary disease that affects a normal bodily function has nothing to do with choice. What infertile person’s are talking about is effective medical treatment for the involuntary disease of infertility. And most causes of infertility are actually involuntary, and affect men and women equally at all reproductive ages (20’s 30’s and 40’s). This is not just a “woman’s” issue, and certainly not all about older career women waiting too long, despite Wente’s stereotyped, light-on-facts diatribe. Is infertility sometimes due to declining fertility due to age? yes, sometimes it is (especially since as a society everyone is having children at an increasing age), and sometimes it is a combination of physical issues and aging. But many health issues we treat are due to age anyway. We don’t “blame the victim” because their body is aging and causing issues. 42 and under is well within normal reproductive years for most women and is a very reasonable cut off age for funded treatment. Despite the assumptions perpetuated by Wente and yourself, no, most fertility patients are not all career women who waited too long, blah, blah, blah. Fertility clinics are filled with patients of all ages, and over the years I have met literally hundreds of them and most of them are not your version of the stereotypical patient you base your bashing on.
I find it very unfortunate that because you have the choice, and you have chosen to not have children, that another’s choice is therefore “self-serving”. What does that even mean? That someone might desire to have a child, and they also have a disease but they need medical assistance to assist in achieving that goal that somehow they are “self-serving”? That is a “load of cobblers” as you say.
There is nothing “sneaky” about any of the arguments being made by the so-called fertility lobby (this so-called “lobby” is simply patients wanting equal treatment for their disease and their supporters and a government task force-infertility patients quite likely are the least represented patient group out there actually). They are well explained FACTS on the reality of infertility, and the multiple birth rate which could be lowered by funding IVF as shown by real world examples in other countries that fund treatment (which by the way is almost every other nation in the world with a collective health care system besides Canada).
i hope every child in this world will be free and get bright future.
This post make me so sad T_T
Susan,
As a childfree woman, I don’t consider that somebody’s identity depends on their reproductive status. The childfree don’t exclude those who are not, through their personal circumstances, able to participate in a society that glorifies parenthood and denigrates those who are not part of that group.
I don’t doubt that infertile people suffer emotionally from their problem. It is my opinion that a great deal of suffering comes from the expectation of friends, family and society that they should resort to heroic measures in order to produce a child. Perhaps the infertile would be better served by a reduction of the expectations placed upon them. I have known a number of infertile people express relief after getting off the merry-go-round of IVF treatment. Yet they were still urged by family and friends to keep going, to keep putting the woman’s body through uncomfortable, invasive treatment, when actually they were ready to come to terms with the fact that it wasn’t going to happen.
By the way, infertility is NOT a disease. It’s a symptom of a problem within the body, and as such can have many causes. It can be the consequence of a disease. It can be a natural result of ageing of the body. It can be congenital. It can even be pyschosomatic. In a public healthcare system such as that of the UK, where there are limited funds to cover the medical needs of an entire population, some treatments have to be prioritised over others. Infertility won’t kill you, and it won’t ruin your life unless you permit it to do so. Other ailments certainly can.
Susan, you may wish to read something from the American Journal of Epidemiology whose study found that men who were conceived via the use of different forms of fertility treatment had a 45% lower sperm count than those who were not.
I have to counter the suggestion too that reproduction is a normal healthy body function. For me, it’s far from normal. It’s the most horrible thing about exising as a human – the fact that my body is capable of reproducing. If I were unable to access an abortion, I fear suicide would be my only option. That makes it a psychological issue, which infertility also is.
There is far too much credence put into satifying the shallow needs of people instead of treating the deep rooted problems. You’re infertile? Well, we’ll just get you wheeled into the nearest hospital and spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds/dollars of taxpayer money on getting you that coveted child who you will undoubtedly complain and bitch about while pregnant, and even more so when it’s holding you back from the other things that you wanted to do in life. I’ve known people who desperately wanted kids and when finally pregnant they did nothing but complain about it and warn me off it. They weren’t even joking.
This fast-paced instant satisfaction worldwide society has made the baby an accessory that can be bought at a price with little more than feeling sorry for yourself. No-one wants to treat deep rooted psychological problems, they just want immediate gratification for whatever is ailing them at that moment. They never think that those problems will come back hugely magnified in the future. No-one wants to do things for the greater good or that might be more beneficial in the long term, instead they want it fixed and it has to be now, fuck the monetary and social cost of it – if someone wants it, they are going to get it.
Whatever happened to working for things that you deserve instead of getting everything now? What happened to accepting your lot and finding things to fill your life? What the hell happened to being an individual, instead of claiming things as “normal” so they must be done by everyone and when a select few can’t, claiming it as a disease?
“Adoption is often expensive and can take years”.
Adoption in the US is no more expensive on average than IVF. How long it takes to adopt a child depends on whether the child comes from foster care or an agency. Becoming pregnant through IVF can take just as long as adoption, if one requires multiple rounds. I dare say that waiting for your government/fellow citizens to determine whether they will fund your pregnancy will take longer than adopting a child.
“It is about the loss of a genetic connection”
If you require an egg donor to become pregnant, the mother of the child has no genetic connection to the child. If you require a sperm donor for IVF the father of the child has no genetic connection to the child. If you require a genetic connection to a child to love it, then your desire is about you and not about the experience of loving a child.
“the loss of the pregnancy experience”
If the nine month “experience” of being pregnant is more important than the life long experience of parenting and providing a home for an adopted child then I would question what truly motivates you to parent. You can argue that what motivates is none of my business, but you make it my business when you ask me to fund it.
If infertility is a “disease” then it is the only one, the treatment of which, may result in the creation of a human being. I find it morally repugnant to divert tax dollars to create more people when so many are negatively affected by an overpopulated and environmentally overburdened planet. I find it morally repugnant to divert tax dollars to create more people when so many live in poverty. I also find it morally repugnant to divert tax dollars to create more people because some simply don’t want to adopt. And, I find it morally repugnant to divert tax dollars to pay to impregnate someone who, since no one has bothered to check, may not be parenting material–so that more tax dollars can be diverted to help care for them.
Again, if you can ONLY be satisfied as a human being if you accomplish parenthood and then only through some very narrow spectrum that you have defined for yourself then I would suggest that you somehow find the funds to meet those needs.
I don’t think I need add much to what Lee and other have said, as those are my thoughts exactly. I find it interesting how quicky Susan and like-minded are to term infertility a disease. Of course they have to – how else are they going to make a case for diverting thousands of tax dollars to it? The fact that you think it’s a disease however doesn’t make it so. If you want babies to satisfy a bodily desire or an image of what you feel you should be or be doing then fund it yourself, not with tax dollars. You don’t NEED a biological connection or any of the other things on your wish-list. But you want one for all the reasons you’ve listed. Nothing against you wanting what you want… if you really want a child there are ways you can have one as has been mentioned already. I see no reason why tax payers should furnish your wish to be pregnant, your wish for gentic connection etc, etc.
I frankly don’t care if you have the pregancy eperience or not and see no reason why I should.
Public funds – my tax dollars – so that you can fulfil your wish to cuddle a baby/be a parent and fit in? You (and the infetility lobby) will have to do much, much better than that. If your want is that big, find a way to fund it yourself.
“I think infertile persons would actually be better served by being treated with the respect they deserve instead of being judged, stereotyped and belittled by comments like the ones posted her, by you and others.”
If you don’t like the comments posted here, feel free not to visit. “Jugded, stereotyped and belittled?” Seriously? Undergo whatever treatment you want, if you want, however you want. Just not with our tax dollars.
Britgirl.
“We” are not the ones terming infertility a disease, it is termed a disease by medical experts, like any other disease is.
And quite frankly, it actually doesn’t matter that you or someone else doesn’t care about an infertile’s pregnancy experience or not, because that isn’t the issue.
The issue of health care funding is about equitable treatment to all taxpayers for their disease or medical problem. Infertile taxpayers pay taxes like everyone else and expect to be treated equitably and fairly not like second class citizens because some feel that they should be able to “pick and choose” whose health issues are worthy and whose are not based on their personal views.
@Susan: It’s not about health care funding. It’s about funding IVF. Two very different issues, despite the attempt of the lobby (and yourself) to try and make it all about “health care”. Since you are the one who brought up the points about pregnancy experience et al, it clearly matters to you otherwise I wonder what your point was in mentioning it at all. Once again, when it comes to funding IVF, still a non life or death issue, do it without my tax dollars.
Tangentially related, to my previous post– it is interesting to note that one of the causes of infertility is man-made air and water pollution. Pollution can also cause a measurable drop in the I.Q. of children whose mother’s were exposed while pregnant.
Mother Nature–the great equalizer.
In response to your email to called “disappointing” from you Susan – I am not “disallowing comments because they don’t agree with my personal view,” so please don’t go there.
What seems to have happened is your comments have for some reason gone from moderation on your last comment into my spam queue – probably because you’ve left several long ones comments all in a short space of time. I’ve tries to approve them but for now it’s not happening – my system apparently thinks you’re a spammer. If I can get them approved and to appear I will.
Edit – some of your comments just won’t re appear, at least not for the moment. I’d refrain from posting further long comments… yours are the only comments that there’s a problem with.
Well said, Lee. I would like to add that adoption is free through the US foster care system.
Yes, and ironically, pollution is greatly exacerbated by overpopulation.
I actually have to agree with Susan’s point about health coverage for elective procedures. I had a tubal on the public dime, and I was happy to take it even though I was in a position to pay out of pocket for Essure. I’d sure as hell want access to abortion, should I ever need it. So yeah, I’ll concede that one. It’s a valid point.
If I was running health care systems, my mandate would be really simple. If you’re a working, contributing taxpayer (or a retired contributing taxpayer) who has health issues through no fault of your own, then you’re at the top of the queue. The more your health issue impairs your quality of life, the higher up you go. If you treat your body like a junkyard and then expect the health system to fix it when it breaks, then you’re at the bottom of the pile. And if your issue does not affect your quality of life at all (other than in your head) then you pay for it yourself, or we’ll get to you if and when there’s money left over. If it’s not going to kill you, it’s not a priority. Guess where IVF fits into that scenario, and you’ll have my thoughts in the matter.
I feel for people who so desperately want children and can’t have them. I have friends who came out the end with a little boy over the winter, after nine years of trying to conceive, then trying to adopt, and finally going three rounds of IVF (the last self funded) as a last resort. I know what they went through. But in the end, I do agree that sometimes life’s not fair, and you might not get everything you want – and you might have to deal.
hey Xena–it is ironic isn’t it? I believe that is ye olde– what goes around comes around paradigm which is similar in effect to the the foul one’s own nest paradigm. Heavy (metal) sigh.
Hello, all. I’ve been living happily child-free my whole life, but only recently, when I jokingly put a “forgot to have kids” link on my young website, was I exposed to the CF movement. It’s great to hear so many thoughtful, insightful opinions on the subject.
As for health care costs in the U.S. (our current political nightmare), I wanted to share that Blue Cross Blue Shield, one of our biggest insurers, covers 100% of tubal ligation costs. At least in my state. And that’s one of the major problems with our system: radically different rules and regs by region, not enough competition, and outrageous administrative costs in trying to figure it all out.
My personal take on infertility: If nature is refusing to facilitate conception, it’s for a reason. Take a hint and move on.
Thanks guys, keep up the good work and discussion!
In college I doubled majored in political science and it surprised me how these kind of issues have some pretty far-ranging implications for the governments involved. The prospect of declining birthrates in modern, industrialized countries scares many of them. In Japan and Spain alone, the birthrate is so low it’s not keeping up with the increase of the elderly population. Mind you, I’m not advocating the use of taxes to promote inception. Within the same range of articles I read on the subject, the decrease in a country’s population can actually have a positive effect overall. There could be less GDP per capita, but the economic conditions for people in those countries may be better. Quality of life may even increase.
At any rate, overpopulation is a huge contributor to global pollution.
Yes Sean, apparently it’s fine to increase the population even if you are expanding the ranks with people who have lower IQ’s due to pollution exposure. In fact, as far as most politicians go, the lower the IQ of the average voter, the better–it’s makes manipulation a breeze and our government leaders look look geniuses by comparison.
@Lee – “…apparently it’s fine to increase the population even if you are expanding the ranks with people who have lower IQ’s due to pollution exposure.”
Heh, I was just talking about a government maintaining its tax-base, but I see your point. With a few exceptions, I think if a country’s population’s IQ is put to a bell curve, it’ll still be consistent; but wow, you’re right, you have to wonder if the stuff we’re consuming is really that good for us. For a time, I grew up in a small farming community in Indiana. It was a joke the only reason anyone outside the county knows about the town was because the Environmental Protection Agency knew how big a problem pesticides were there.
Hi Sean–here’s an article you may find interesting.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1912197,00.html
I am an environmentalist and read a fair amount of research from the leading groups and litigators and it is downright horrifying how much pollution affects overall health. The fact that it affects cognitive abilities in newborns is something everyone should be paying attention to. Or more precisely, perhaps that is what it takes for people to pay attention.
I was sort of being facetious re: the politicians–though it’s obvious they pander to groups they think they can outsmart. In any case, if you are an average person on the bell curve and your IQ drops 4, 5 or more points it can affect your quality of life. I recently attended a conference where Robert Kennedy Jr was a keynote speaker. He is representing poor communities in Appalachia who are affected by run-off from mountain top coal removal. Who better to exploit than than the poverty stricken. What gets dumped into their water supply in the process of extracting “clean coal” would make your hair curl–or more likely, fall out. Kennedy himself, who lives upstate in New York, was tested to have such a high level of mercury in his system–(just from breathing the air and drinking the water) that if he were a woman and became pregnant his child would be at risk for having a minimum IQ reduction of 7 pts. I know that there was a study done by a researcher at Mt. Sinai showing a strong causal link between pollution and autism. Everyone wants to do what they do and live how they want to live but we don’t all operate in a vacuum and eventually our self-serving actions come back to haunt us–clearly they already have. I think Americans in general tend to think less of their fellow citizens and more about how they are going to get their individual needs met. I’m all for more community and less competition.
Indiana, huh?! Former Ohio gal here! Let’s hear it for the rust belt.
Sorry, BG–seriously off-topic here, just wanted to share the pollution link. Maybe it will provide some future parents with some perspective.
Just to add an interesting point to the discussion whether infertility is an illness: the statutory health insurance in Germany will pay for IVF (3 rounds, I think) – but only if the couple is married. Doesn’t that indicate that they do NOT really consider infertility to be an illness – how else could they justify this discrimination? Or is there any other illness the treatment of which will only be paid for if the patient is married? (unless of course infertility is an illness that you catch BY getting married…)
And healthcare plans don’t cover contraception, which was a shock to my system after moving to Germany from the UK, where it is free. Infuriating, since I’m saving my health insurers a whole heap of money by not reproducing.
Nicole–that is a very interesting point! At least they seem to be concerned about the child being born into a seemingly stable home environment.
I don’t consider infertility a disease and I don’t think that it should be considered on the same level as cancer treatments when it comes to the government paying for it. I realize that infertile people can go through considerable anguish from not being able to conceive, but I do not believe that their grief at not being able to create a life trumps those whose grief stems from not being able to save one.
it’s obscene to think that all women who are seeking treatment through IVF are simply selfish women who let their eggs ‘expire’… in fact, expired eggs is the one thing IVF CAN’T solve. Margaret Wente is so painfully uninformed, it’s scary. the problem with this type of article is that it is so hysterical… and pushes the public’s buttons (raise my taxes for women who waited too long? hell no!) that it could have a negative effect on the effort to make infertility treatments accessible to all couples, NOT just the rich ones. infertility is a disease and a condition that is NO fault of your own… not only that, but MEN have just as much to account for in infertility as women do… but sadly, Margaret likes to vilify only the women.
we’re not producing designer babies, and we’re not solving the procrastinator’s problems for them. we’re allowing couples to fulfill their right to reproduce. and when it’s personally funded, we’re only helping the have’s… which if you ask me, is unfair.
your choice to remain childless is your own.
your tax money goes to pay for things you don’t agree with EVERY DAY… vegetarians pay for safe meat inspection; peace-loving canadians pay for the armed forces’ involvement in wars overseas… etc. etc.
in fact, taxpayers foot the bill for your visits to your doctor for birth control so that you do NOT procreate. and we might well pay for an abortion a woman chooses to have so that she does not have a baby. why shouldn’t we put our monies into those who DO want to become have a family as well?
fair is fair.
it’s obscene to think that all women who are seeking treatment through IVF are simply selfish women who let their eggs ‘expire’… in fact, expired eggs is the one thing IVF CAN’T solve. Margaret Wente is so painfully uninformed, it’s scary. the problem with this type of article is that it is so hysterical… and pushes the public’s buttons (raise my taxes for women who waited too long? hell no!) that it could have a negative effect on the effort to make infertility treatments accessible to all couples, NOT just the rich ones. infertility is a disease and a condition that is NO fault of your own… not only that, but MEN have just as much to account for in infertility as women do… but sadly, Margaret likes to vilify only the women.
we’re not producing designer babies, and we’re not solving the procrastinator’s problems for them. we’re allowing couples to fulfill their right to reproduce. and when it’s personally funded, we’re only helping the have’s… which if you ask me, is unfair.
your choice to remain childless is your own.
your tax money goes to pay for things you don’t agree with EVERY DAY… vegetarians pay for safe meat inspection; peace-loving canadians pay for the armed forces’ involvement in wars overseas… etc. etc.
in fact, taxpayers foot the bill for your visits to your doctor for birth control so that you do NOT procreate. and we might well pay for an abortion a woman chooses to have so that she does not have a baby. why shouldn’t we put our monies into those who DO want to have a family as well?
fair is fair.
Actually, it is about time that someone publicly addressed the issue of age and fertility. The fertility industry has successfully made society believe that conception can be delayed much longer than it can or should be. This is no mistake, as women then in turn pay clinics a lot of money to conceive. Over the years, I have come across a few news articles which stated that infertility has become so common largely due to delaying conception and that a woman’s fertility starts to decline at the age of 26. These few articles have been buried by tons of articles with headlines like “Woman gives birth to twins at 50!” I recently read one stating that a woman’s fertility starts to decline at 38. That is a big jump from 26. Personally, if I’m putting something off, I start to question whether it is something I really want in the first place.
The infertility industry is partly to be blame for this. They are really insensitive, and callous…They’ve brainwashed people to think they can breed (notice I call it “breed”) when they want….The genetic thing is stupid, for most women use donor eggs anyway, and the failure rates are very, very high…. Which they don´t want anyone to know, either… Hear disease, cancer and other serous illness treatment will really suffer because of this nonsense!!! Besides, many IVF seekers are people who were turned off by adoption agencies in the first place, and for a very good reason: if you cannot afford IVF you cannot afford a child in the first place….. Maturing is accepting we can´t get all we want, when we want it, and how many as we want (the ones that want fertility with one child make me shudder). Get over yourselves, girls!!!
Careful Maria! That kind of down to earth thinking tends to bring forth sudden comparisons of IVF and baby making to life threatening and fatal diseases
for which we must pay cause it’s up there with, say, cancer, right? Anyone who disagrees goes to the bad,selfish person pile 
Thanks for commenting!
great post!