Inspired by the semen thread.

[bara]

Didn't want to thread jack.

A couple I know has a less than 1% chance of getting pregnant, but they cant get any type of assistance to have costly medical help.

My complaint, if people can get assistance to have abortions, why cant they get assistance to have a kid?
(for the sake of this thread let us not bring up adoptions)

With people having abortions simply because they refuse to use birth control, this makes no sense to me. I understand the majority of abortions are for emotional, financial and health issues. I am talking about the ones for convenience only.

The couple I am talking about both work and are excellent people who I think would make great parents and have been married for several years.

[HYHYBT]

Didn't want to thread jack.

After this subject line... :groan: (whether that works or not)

Look at it from a financial perspective. Having a baby and raising it is *expensive*. It makes sense, then, to help someone who cannot even afford an abortion, let alone raising the child decently, to have one. Meanwhile, helping someone *to conceive* when they can neither do so on their own nor pay for treatment themselves is likely to increase the need for further assistance later on.

Declaring adoption out-of-bounds for discussion is absurd. That's only one way to have a child for less than fertility treatments cost, but it's a valid one.

[AdminAssistant]

I have an ethical problem with couples wanting insurance to cover fertility treatments, such as IVF, because adoption is an option. There are already many children out there who need homes...why go to medical extremes when there's already a child who needs you?

[Andara Bledin]

Another thing to consider is that the inability to conceive is often a genetic defect.

I will never understand why people are so insistent that they pass on proven defective genes to their descendents. I understand that procreation is an instinctual urge, but we've evolved to a point where we can be rational when dealing with our own urges.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Were there a crisis of reduced birth rates then I'd think that there would be fiscal assistance. Right now, we've got plenty of people and too many children needing a foster home.

Rapscallion

[fireheart17]

I have an ethical problem with couples wanting insurance to cover fertility treatments, such as IVF, because adoption is an option. There are already many children out there who need homes...why go to medical extremes when there's already a child who needs you?

From an Australian perspective, here are the costs of IVF vs. costs of adoption:

From a clinic in Sydney: depending on the method used, the first cycle for fertility treatments can go from $1220-$3050, while subsequent cycles can go from $1210-$2520.

Adoption costs for an inter-country adoption: Upwards of $40,000, which includes the fees for psychological tests, submitting the paperwork to prove that you are capable of adopting, airfare fees, visa fees, submitting the paperwork to have the child registered as an Australian citizen, other paperwork that needs to be submitted and so on.

Another thing to consider is that the inability to conceive is often a genetic defect.

I will never understand why people are so insistent that they pass on proven defective genes to their descendents. I understand that procreation is an instinctual urge, but we've evolved to a point where we can be rational when dealing with our own urges.

^-.-^

That genetic defect may not necessary be passed on.

Were there a crisis of reduced birth rates then I'd think that there would be fiscal assistance. Right now, we've got plenty of people and too many children needing a foster home.

Rapscallion

Unfortunately those parents want cute and cuddly newborns that they can raise as if they were their own, instead of a teenager who's bitter at losing their parents.

[Panacea]

A couple I know has a less than 1% chance of getting pregnant, but they cant get any type of assistance to have costly medical help.

My complaint, if people can get assistance to have abortions, why cant they get assistance to have a kid?
(for the sake of this thread let us not bring up adoptions)

With people having abortions simply because they refuse to use birth control, this makes no sense to me. I understand the majority of abortions are for emotional, financial and health issues. I am talking about the ones for convenience only.

The couple I am talking about both work and are excellent people who I think would make great parents and have been married for several years.

I'm sure your friends would be great parents. I'm sorry they're having such a hard time.

First of all, who are you talking about when you say "assistance"? Private organizations or the government? In the case of the latter, bear in mind the government does not fund abortion. You can't get government assistance to have an abortion. Even if you go through Planned Parenthood, you still have to pay something.

Abortions are far cheaper than IVF. You can get conception assitance from organizations like Planned Parenthood, but not IVF. It costs more than any organization can afford.

Insurance does not cover it because infertility is not a life threatening condition. Insurance companies sometimes cover abortion, but not always, and may only cover it in cases of medical necessity (policies vary). I don't think insurance SHOULD cover medications for impotence such as Viagra.

Just because a few women have abortions for convenience does not mean couples who want children should have access to an expensive medical procedure with no guarantee of success.

I don't understand why adoption is off the table? There are many kids in need of a home. Sounds like your friends would make great foster parents.

Another thing to consider is that the inability to conceive is often a genetic defect.

I will never understand why people are so insistent that they pass on proven defective genes to their descendents. I understand that procreation is an instinctual urge, but we've evolved to a point where we can be rational when dealing with our own urges.

The problem may also be that this couple is infertile with each other. Sometimes body chemistries are not compatible.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't understand why adoption is off the table?

I'm not sure that Bara was saying that they won't consider Adoption. Only that Adoption was tangential to the point of the thread (why can't they get assistance for IVF?)

[bara]

I'm not sure that Bara was saying that they won't consider Adoption. Only that Adoption was tangential to the point of the thread (why can't they get assistance for IVF?)

This would be correct. I am not saying it isn't an option for them. I wanted other reasons as to why it wouldn't be feasible without the 'they can just adopt' argument.

Particularly I was referring to insurance not willing to pick up any of the costs. I am not sure IVF is what they need and I did not ask for specific information simply because it is an emotionally charged topic for them. The subject was brought up purely by accident.

[HYHYBT]

I'm not sure that Bara was saying that they won't consider Adoption. Only that Adoption was tangential to the point of the thread

It's not tangential, though. The existence of other options is going to be relevant when looking at whether to pay for something.

(And if adoption costs more than IVF, the problem is in the adoption system, and therefore the solution would be to reform that.)

As for insurance coverage.... unless you have a system where *all* health care is paid through taxes, I see no reason optional procedures would be covered under a standard policy. IVF is *completely* optional. No harm will ever come to you for not getting pregnant. So rather than asking why it's not covered, the question is, why SHOULD it be?

[Giggle Goose]

Government assistance that would give the world MORE mouths to feed?! If you want kids, make sure you can afford it. End of story. And spare me the crap about "well you can run into hard times AFTER having a kid, blah blah blah." Yeah, i get it, but the world's resources are overburdened as it is. Surely I don't need to send you a link or empirical study to understand that.

[DrFaroohk]

And spare me the crap about "well you can run into hard times AFTER having a kid, blah blah blah."

So people are expected to be psychic? "Well honey I think now is a good time to have a family. I have a great job making 400K a year, health insurance, life insurance, everything we need to raise a kid. We good to go?" Three years later, lose your job because some idiot on wallstreet screwed up. Yeah, that's totally your own fault! You should've known better!

[Rapscallion]

To be fair, 400k a year is pretty much a salary for an idiot on wall street...

Rapscallion

[SkullKing]

So people are expected to be psychic? "Well honey I think now is a good time to have a family. I have a great job making 400K a year, health insurance, life insurance, everything we need to raise a kid. We good to go?" Three years later, lose your job because some idiot on wallstreet screwed up. Yeah, that's totally your own fault! You should've known better!

I think you misunderstood him.

He was saying that people being able to fall into hard times is not a valid counter argument for people wanting to have extrababies when they already are on hard times.

Which I agree.

[blas87]

Slight nitpick, but Giggles is a girl a very lovely girl at that

I'm not very well informed on IVF or anything of the sort, but I'm a big adoption and foster parent advocate.

I also don't comprehend the "it has to be MY biological child!" infactuation.