Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

LilElvis

supermassive wrote: »

I think you may find that plenty of children are born without their parents being desperate - or even wanting - to have a baby.

IVF is something I particularly disagree with. First of all, it's ridiculously expensive. Extortionate, even. Secondly, it's un-required. Of course, it's nice to have a baby that's genetically yours, but there are plenty of children out there that can be adopted that, unfortunately, weren't so lucky to have parents that wanted a child so much. Perhaps we should think about clearing out children's homes before we go desperately trying to create more life just because it's blood related.

I understand every woman thinks it's their right to have a child biologically, but nature disagrees in some instances.

Oh, the classic line from someone who hasn't a clue - you should adopt, because it is just like walking into a sweet shop, pointing and saying "I will have one of those, please" :T

And, as you obviously don't recall my earlier posts, my daughter was born thanks to donor eggs so isn't "blood related".

Of course IVF is expensive. We spent nearly £25,000 on it and I know several couples who have spent well into 6 figures on treatment. It's not like paying for a bit of botox - clinics are incredibly expensive to run - highly qualified staff, operating theatres, extrememely expensive equipment, ongoing reasearch into new techniques. A single embryoscope costs £100,000 - clinics have to fund purchases like these by charging their patients.

Please don't waste your time by posting about a topic of which you, clearly, have no knowledge.

moomoomama27

bluelass wrote: »

I thought only those on low incomes get working tax credits? if the radfords have their own business surely they wouldn't qualify for them.

I guess that would depend on how much money they make from it.

Hedgehog99

The obsession with having "one's own child", even to the extent of using donor components is sad and exploits vulnerable people.

Life can be complete without being a parent of any kind, and being a parent can be great with an adopted child.

It's not as if the planet is running out of people. We need to reduce the world population of humans and the best way to do that is voluntary childlessness.

LilElvis

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

The obsession with having "one's own child", even to the extent of using donor components is sad and exploits vulnerable people.

Life can be complete without being a parent of any kind, and being a parent can be great with an adopted child.

It's not as if the planet is running out of people. We need to reduce the world population of humans and the best way to do that is voluntary childlessness.

How are gamete donors exploited?

LilElvis

Marisco wrote: »

I should think not either!!

Clinics generally only treat a woman with her own eggs up to age 45 simply because there is almost zero chance of success at that point. Patients choose clinics based, in part, on success rates so failed treatment cycles may be profitable but will adversely affect their statistics.

Marisco

LilElvis wrote: »

Clinics generally only treat a woman with her own eggs up to age 45 simply because there is almost zero chance of success at that point. Patients choose clinics based, in part, on success rates so failed treatment cycles may be profitable but will adversely affect their statistics.

Personally I think even that is way too old, even for conceiving naturally.

Buzzybee90

Marisco wrote: »

Personally I think even that is way too old, even for conceiving naturally.

I agree.

Unfortunately financial stability and mother's best age run against each other.

Mid/late 20s is the best of both, I suppose.

FBaby

I understand every woman thinks it's their right to have a child biologically, but nature disagrees in some instances.

Isn't this view against disabled rights? People who can't have children could argue that they are very much disabled, physically and mentally. Does this mean that they should not be given the chance to have biological children even though science allows it and have to adopt children if they want to be parents even though it might not be what they would choose, ie. one rule for those who can conceive naturally, a different rule for those who can't?

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

I think you may find that plenty of children are born without their parents being desperate - or even wanting - to have a baby.

IVF is something I particularly disagree with. First of all, it's ridiculously expensive. Extortionate, even. Secondly, it's un-required. Of course, it's nice to have a baby that's genetically yours, but there are plenty of children out there that can be adopted that, unfortunately, weren't so lucky to have parents that wanted a child so much. Perhaps we should think about clearing out children's homes before we go desperately trying to create more life just because it's blood related.

I understand every woman thinks it's their right to have a child biologically, but nature disagrees in some instances.

Unfortunately delaying parenthood until you are financially best placed to have them means that you are no longer physical best placed to have them. I thought it was the financially secure that you wanted to become parents?

sulphate

Women just can't win when it comes to having babies. There is often the choice of them choosing to have a baby earlier and being deemed not financially stable enough, or later and being deemed too old. My mum had me just before she turned 43. She always wanted children young but didn't have them because she simply hadn't met anyone she wanted to have children with, nothing to do with wanting a career first etc. I'm 27 and expecting my first in February having met my husband in early twenties. There are advantages and disadvantages to both ages both of which I've experienced first hand.

I don't agree that IVF is "not required". The NHS deals with many things that you could argue are self-inflicted such as sports injuries, type 2 diabetes etc. Once you start suggesting things that the NHS should and shouldn't pay for, you open a huge can of worms.