Should People Have Children If They Cant Afford Them

FatVonD

Gavin83 wrote: »

Seriously as someone else has suggested what is wrong with adoption?

By the time most people have realised they have fertility issues they are past the age they would be considered as adoptive parents of a baby or young child.

Gavin83

GobbledyGook wrote: »

You'd have to radically overhaul the adoption system before it became an option for more people imo.

I fully agree. The adoption system is too difficult at the moment and needs to be seriously looked at. I can understand the need to protect the children but at the end of the day they should be heading into a better life. Therefore they should be encouraging couples to head down this route, not place so many barriers in the way. This is however a separate issue to IVF.

FBaby wrote: »

Clearly the attitude of someone who doesn't know what it is like to desperately want a child, something that most people can have with little effort, and yet can't without assistance.

Whether you have children yourself, don't care much about having them, or assume you will do later in life, you clearly are clueless if you can't appreciate that not being able to have a child very much feels like a disability to those who go infertility.

I'm not denying it must be heartbreaking to want a child that you are unable to have however it's not a disability. Once you can grab yourself a blue badge for infertility I'll reconsider my opinion.

Marisco

FBaby wrote: »

Clearly the attitude of someone who doesn't know what it is like to desperately want a child, something that most people can have with little effort, and yet can't without assistance.

Whether you have children yourself, don't care much about having them, or assume you will do later in life, you clearly are clueless if you can't appreciate that not being able to have a child very much feels like a disability to those who go infertility.

I normally generally agree with your posts FBaby, but I must say, I think the bolded bit is quite an insult to genuinely disabled people. (I know you don't mean it like that though) It's unfortunate, hard luck etc, but it's certainly not a disability, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Where will it end? I've just watched a segment on Breakfast, where they were saying obesity should be treated as a disability, with all the equality legislation that goes along with it!! At this rate, there will be more people classed as disabled than non disabled!!

sulphate

Gavin83 wrote: »

There's a big difference. Regardless of if its because of their own doing or not you are providing life saving treatment, or at least treatment to improve the quality of someone's life. That's what the NHS is for. I compare IVF treatment to providing cosmetic surgery on the NHS. Neither are essential, the person won't die and will be able to continue with life normally without these treatments.

Ideally everyone would get limitless IVF treatments in the NHS along with anything else they want. However we don't live in an ideal world. These things all cost money and my point is quite simply if they had to cut something it should be one of the first things to go. Are you seriously suggesting a smoker should be denied cancer treatment so a couple can have a round of IVF?

Seriously as someone else has suggested what is wrong with adoption?

But that isn't happening, is it? No one is being denied life-saving treatment in favour of funding a cycle of IVF.

As for adoption, people seem to think that there are countless babies waiting in orphanages for loving homes. This simply isn't the case. According to my county's adoption agency's website, they are "currently looking for families particularly for brothers and sisters to grow up together in pairs or groups of three; children over three and disabled children of all ages".

So if you're looking to adopt one baby, join the very long queue.

I wouldn't say that infertility is a disability, but it is a medical condition. Many treatments on the NHS are funded for those who are not disabled. I have a medical condition which I receive minimal tests and treatment for now and again, it's not a disability. I'm pregnant, clearly not a disability either, and also my choice to have a baby. Does that mean the NHS should start axing its maternity services, too?

Hedgehog99

LilElvis wrote: »

How are gamete donors exploited?

Gamete donors are exploited to a certain extent - as far as trading off donating gametes in exchange for their own IVF treatment, but they are already "in that process" due to going through their own cycles.

Donors who are not undergoing IVF themselves may feel pressured from a financial POV, especially in other countries where egg donors are paid more than just expenses.

The main exploitation I meant to refer to is that of infertile couples. Historically, infertile couples found out they couldn't have children & had to deal with it, some more successfully than others, and, I agree that some suffered long-term emotional pain as a result.

Today though, with IVF and its related technologies, there is pressure on couples to go on to the next step and the next and the next, desperately trying everything. I wonder whether wrecked marriages and the long-term stress are worth it, compared to coming to terms with it earlier on and finding other fulfilment in one's life. There must be tremendous guilt for some if the couple admit defeat amidst society's child-centric culture of today.

The NHS is exploited by couples going abroad for IVF that would not be permitted here (due to age or multiple embryos) and then returning for their pregnancy and birth. Multiple-births are much more expensive than single babies.

Hedgehog99

LilElvis wrote: »

Why? What happens at age 40 that should disqualify you from becoming a mother?

No mention of fathers who can continue to procreate well into their 60s and 70s.

Men can still father children because their bodies don't have to sustain a pregnancy.

Even though humans are domesticated and have discovered the wonders of hygiene and healthcare, a pregnancy in one's 40's is more risky, both to the mother and the child. Yes, plenty of women manage it having conceived naturally, but they still; need extra healthcare during pregnancy and they have a greater risk of their child needing extra healthcare, so I don't think that means the NHS should pay for IVF for those whose bodies have "nature's veto" to pregnancy.

vroombroom

I haven't read all the posts, so apologies if I repeat anything.

Me and my OH did everything the 'wrong' way round - moved in, had a baby, got engaged, bought a house.|

Our son is 4 in May and we have no plans for anymore. As someone else said - people have children and expect to have it all. Having one child allows us to have it all - we have a beautiful two bed house, a brand new car, two holidays a year, new clothes, swimming lessons for our son. We're not in debt, both work opposite shifts (him days, me eves/nights) and live within our means. I have my own little business from home too. We get CB, all of which goes into my son's savings unless he needs new nursery uniform/shoes etc and we have never had tax credits or anything else.

I am constantly under pressure from friends, some family members and people who don't really know me to have another baby. They don't understand when I say I am happy with my lot. If we did, there would be 4 of us crammed into a tiny house, and the stuff I mentioned above - well, we'd have to give a lot of it up. Materialistic? Yes I am probably am, but I've worked too dam hard to get to where I am today:money:

sulphate

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

Men can still father children because their bodies don't have to sustain a pregnancy.

Even though humans are domesticated and have discovered the wonders of hygiene and healthcare, a pregnancy in one's 40's is more risky, both to the mother and the child. Yes, plenty of women manage it having conceived naturally, but they still; need extra healthcare during pregnancy and they have a greater risk of their child needing extra healthcare, so I don't think that means the NHS should pay for IVF for those whose bodies have "nature's veto" to pregnancy.

It's true that women over 35 are considered to have higher risk pregnancies but so are many others including those with diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure.

Regarding a child needing extra healthcare, someone over the age of 40 does have a greater risk of conceiving a child with Down's syndrome for example. However, most children with Down's syndrome are born to younger mothers.

NICE only recommends that up to 3 IVF cycles should be available on the NHS if the woman is aged between 23 and 39, if the woman is 39-42 only 1 cycle is recommended. These are only recommendations so what a couple may be able to get funded on the NHS in their area may be much less (or nothing) in practice.

FatVonD

supermassive wrote: »

Touched a nerve, did I? Diddums.

Well, IVF is CLEARLY the same as going into a sweet shop if that's what made you take the selfish decision to do what you did instead of choosing adoption.

Either apply to adopt, go through potentially years of hoops and get a child that otherwise would've been pretty miserable, or spend loads of money CREATING a child that wouldn't have existed just so you can be pregnant.:rotfl:

Think of this for a second without using your cervix as a brain and you'll see how utterly ridiculous IVF is.

Actually, it's kind of like taking out a massive loan to get a car that costs loads of money to run. It's madness. Get a pre-owned car.

Ignoring for the moment how offensive your post is...

As has already been mentioned, once a woman finds out for sure she is infertile she is likely to be over the age when she/they would be considered as prospective adopters of a baby or young child.

She/they may be able to adopt a child with disabilities meaning that in all likelihood they will have to give up the career that got them to a position of financially being able to afford a child to become a full-time carer.

She/they may be able to adopt a group of older children who are likely to be quite damaged emotionally and may need care that a first time parent may be ill equipped to provide.

The answer is not for responsible people to pick up the pieces for the !!!!less idiots that pump out children regardless of the fact they are incapable of parenting them properly but for those people to be stopped from reproducing in the first place.

supermassive

What I think is a bit ironic, perhaps, is that if you're financially stable, and can't conceive naturally - by the time you conceive with IVF you'll be flat broke!