Should couples who are unable to conceive naturally receive state funding to have IVF treatment? |
Anonymous
Yes they should be given some funding to help couples conceive. IVF is very expensive and many families can't afford it and their Health Ins. doesn’t cover it. Yes there are a lot of children that needs to be adopted but everyone wants to have their own biological child that looks like them. But if you don’t have any problems trying to conceive, then it will be hard to understand where a couple that can’t have any on their own is coming from. People get help from the state that has 5 kids and don’t take care of them, yet they can’t help a family who really wants a child and know that they are going to care for their child and not live off the state and tax payer money. But like I said, you just don’t understand.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernment funding for ivf
I am unable to have children. I have had 3 ectopic pregnancies and the last one took both my tubes. I want a child more than anything, I want to do ivf but it is really expensive. I don't think the state should cover all the expense but maybe help decrease the cost of it for people who can't conceive naturally. We give people who are horrible parents every benefit in the world. I think I deserve a chance to be a good parent to my own biological child. I would consider adoption as well, but nothing is like having your own and seeing your traits in that child. Before some of you go judging and saying the state shouldn't help or pay for ivf you should be in someone's shoes that can't have children. Its awful knowing you will never have that experience. I know first hand. My 3 babies are in heaven.
Posted by: AnonymousInfertility is a huge problem in the United States. If the government had a fund, many deserving parents would have the chance to be parents.
There are plenty of couples that cannot conceive, and would be excellent parents. but IVF treatment is very expensive. Although I do agree that there should be certain qualifications.
Posted by: AnonymousAdoption not always possible
People make it sound like it's so easy to adopt. After looking into it, we found out that it's a seven to eight year wait before a healthy baby would be available. It's also like winning the lottery these days... the birth mother has to choose you. Adoption isn't as simple as it was in the 60's! Birth control and abortion have made fewer and fewer babies available. We've been trying to adopt for YEARS. Still waiting. I suspect that all of the people voting "no" have been able to have children of their own. So easy for them to say "no".
Posted by: AnonymousYes they should be given support to have IVF treatment.
Since IVF treatment is not in the reach of every couple who are unable to conceive naturally, so there must a funding for those deserving couples to get funding to have themselves treated through this technology. But there should be a criterion to determine the deserving couples.
Posted by: IinAshWe pay for everything else!
Why should couples who want to have a child be denied help when we are giving money to everyone else? We give money to those parents who are too lazy to get a job so they can afford to buy their booze and cigarettes, but their kids still don't have a decent pair of shoes or a coat. We give money to those we are extremely obese, because they choose to be. Don't get me wrong I know some people have medical conditions, but come one people, use your heads a majority of these people do it themselves. We give money to drug addicts to clean up their act, just so they can turn around and do it all again. We give money to everything, some deserving, several not deserving! Infertility is just like having a disability (and we give money to those with disabilities). I didn't choose to have fertility issues just like someone wouldn't choose to have a disability. I didn't treat my body badly or do things that caused me to have fertility issues, its something that just happened, but I can assure you that I would make an excellent mother and want to have a kid more than anything. I pay my bills every month, I don't take handouts, but I don't have $10000 to try to have a child that for most people comes easily. We won't help women who want to have children and who will raise them right, but we help those who have way more than they can handle or deserve, because why? By the way adoption isn't free either. It costs money to adopt children, I am all for adoption, but its easy for people with children of their own to point at others and tell them what they should do. I wish you would take the time to imagine your life without your child, because you were never able to have them and you were denied the one thing that could've possibly given them to you. I doubt any of you could imagine not having them. Oh by the way, I believe in god. I would like to inform you that invitro fertilization is using the eggs from my body and the sperm from my husbands body, putting them together (which is how it works). Its pretty similar to the way everyone else conceives, except the fact that it isn't always possible for the egg and the sperm to get to each other to create a child in a person with fertility issue. So, if we can't help with funding for this, then we need to reconsider some of the other things that we use funding for. If you won't help me conceive a child that I will love and take care of, then why should my money be used to pay for people in prisons, those who have done harm to themselves by their own free will, those who have been the cause of their own health problems, and those who keep having children because they know someone else will pay for it. I don't want 20 kids I just want to have one!
Posted by: AnonymousInfertility is a disorder
Just like mental disorders and physical disorders, infertility is a problem for millions of people. Infertility affects 50% of Males and 50% of females of the people who suffer from it. Adoption is an option, however some people do not feel comfortable with this option. Plus adoption is about the same cost as IVF.
Posted by: AnonymousIVF for Blocked Fallopian Tubes
I suffer from blocked fallopian tubes. Unable to conceive naturally, IVF was the option my doctor told my husband and I to try. IVF is very costly and unfortunately even though we want kids we cannot have them due to IVF being way out of our price range. Therefore there should be help through the government for people like us. Why are our taxes paying for parents that can't and/or won't get a job to take care of their own kids. Why can't some of that tax money be spent to help people like us that are working hard everyday and want kids but cannot conceive naturally? I know that we would great parents but may never get the chance!
Posted by: AnonymousHaving a biological child is very important and means a lot to many people.
I believe ivf is way to expensive and the average American can not pay the extreme doctor bills. Having a biological child is way different than adoption. Yes, there are many children in foster care however, when you see a family its amazing to see their children grow up and get to guess at who they will grow up to look like and who they will be more like. If you adopt a child the child could be completely different from you due to hereditary issues. The child could also be very this?raught and could have abandonment issues regardless of the love you give them. I also believe it is a child's right to know they were adopted and it is unfair to a family to have to try and give reason as to why a family did not want to keep their child. Some people aren't good when it comes to confrontation of such extreme cases. I believe anyone who objects to government funding of ivf are people who can have their own kids. Those of us such as myself who can't have their own and have to go through ivf, but can't afford $40,000 pay because they don't know how it really feels to not have the one thing everyone else around them can so easily have. To watch families at christmas and get christmas cards with baby pictures and watch your family grow and know you can't pyour name unto a child. It is a very sad thing. My husband and I make a decent living and could support a child at ease, but their is no way we can come up with the kind of money ivf costs. We don't want to adopt because to us it feels like we are taking a child because of sympathy. We also don't want to adopt because the child will not truly be ours.
Posted by: AnonymousState funding or insurance should cover this medical condition
Draining all your funds to conceive due to a medical condition should not be tolerated in the United States. We can provide health care to illegal people in our country but won't help tax paying citizens with a medical condition that requires IVF treatment through no fault of their own? That is not right.
Where is the medical community on this matter? Why isn't more research done to help these unfortunate couples. God give his mercy to the people making these wrong decisions.
JanePosted by: AnonymousIf the government is funding other medical treatments, then the state should also fund IVF.
Infertility is a medical condition and if the state will be funding all other types of health care or treatments, then it is only fair that the state should fund IVF as well. The only circumstance I would feel differently about is if the woman or man caused the infertility themselves I feel they need to pay for it. This would be based on drug abuse in men or several abortions by the woman. Things like this.
Posted by: eyeslikethatAdoption Is Not For Everyone
Infertility can be caused by many different medical issues and affects women in their prime reproductive years. IVF is not just for women who have made the decision to wait until later in life to have children. If I can be required to pay for women to have abortions and to support children born to parents who cannot afford them, why is it selfish to think that the government could help me achieve my dream of having children of my own? For those who say "just adopt"... Domestic adoption is more expensive than IVF and there is no guarantee that you will be matched with a child. Have these people actually investigated what it takes to adopt before telling the infertile to do so? I would never push a person to have their own child if they choose to remain childless or to adopt, so I am confused why other people think that they have a right to judge me for wanting to have a baby from my own body. I am young and can afford to support a child, but $10-15K is a lot of money to put up for the chance to have a family of my own. Unfortunately, I have an inherited disease that prevents me from getting pregnant unassisted. Even partial funding would help.
I support birth control and abortion being available to all women, and I also support helping couples who cannot have children unassisted. It should not be up to me to decide what choices people make, and if we pay for one side of the coin, we should help with the other.Posted by: AnonymousI think it would be fair to provide financial assistance to a couple trying to conceive.
There are many children who have parents that are unable to care for them and become a financial burden to tax payers. If a couple is financially and emotionally able to raise and care for a child, they should receive the same amount of aid that would normally go to a foster child. If we are going to provide financial assistance to bad parents, shouldn't it be available for good parents as well?
Posted by: I3nKai
I disagree. These couples should rather consider adoption.
I think couples that can not conceive naturally should consider options such as adoption in stead of spending tax payers money on conceiving. There are thousands of orphans that need good homes. If these parents are serious about having children then it would not matter to them that they are not biologically related.
Posted by: tahleaunrealCouples who are unable to conceive naturally should not receive state funding to have IVF treatment because having a child is not a necessity.
Couples who are unable to conceive naturally should not receive state funding to have IVF treatment because having a child is not a necessity like food and clothing and shelter. The states are already way over budget and many states are nearly broke now. This should be the lowest of priority. In fact, it's ridiculous. Another mouth to feed? I don't think so!
Posted by: JeffP4ri5IVF treatments are too pricey.
There are many critical health conditions that are in need of funding. Currently, IVF treatments are costly and are not guaranteed success. In addition, there are many orphans looking to be adopted worldwide. Therefore, infertile couples should always consider adoption rather than cause a burden to the state by going through state-paid IVF.
Posted by: FeIBuddyA child is a gift from God
It is evil to create a child through artifical means. The child is innocent but the parents will have to answer to God.
Posted by: AnonymousCouples who are unable to conceive naturally cannot use the State's money.
This issue is same of that about abortion in various decisions most courts in the United states have concluded that the state will not fund abortions. This can be similarily applied for IVF treatments. It is wrong to use citizens' tax money to pay for IVF treatments.
Posted by: AnonymousIVF Treatment < Adoption
This is an issue directed more towards common sense than anything else. If the couple is unable to conceive naturally, then they should consider adopting a child. There a hundreds among thousands of children looking for a family to raise them in the US as well as other countries across the world. Although it is highly recommended, raising a child is no longer a necessity in today's society.
Posted by: AnonymousI believe that adoption is a very good alternative to spending so much money on a procedure that may not succeed.
Since IVF is such an expensive procedure which may or may not succeed, I believe that considering adoption is a much better alternative. There are so many needy children who are in need of a good home that it makes sense to me for people who desperately want children to consider this alternative. In these hard times with medical costs already out of site for many, I believe that this money cold be better spent elsewhere.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyLow priority.
Of all the medical conditions in the world that requires funding, infertility is probably the most insignificant one. It does not spread, it does not kill and it doesn't even generate physical pain/discomfort. More people are experiencing it now partly due to they postpone having babies till they are much older. If people can sacrifice their chance of having children for their career during their prime, that reflects how low priority having babies is in their life. Even if state chooses to fund IVF treatment one day, there should be an age-limit to it to filter out the people who want it as a "life-style" choice.
Posted by: AnonymousI disagree that couples who are unable to conceive naturally should receive state funding to have IVF treatment.
There could be many reasons why a couple is not able to conceive naturally including their physical and mental well-being, habits and interests. If a couple is not able to conceive due to their habits (excessive smoking, drinking or drugs) it is their individual responsibility to help themselves.
Adoption may be considered in many cases. There are more genuine and deserving cases that need state funding.Posted by: A RichardsonHaving kids is not a concern of the government
The want to have children while nice is not the responsibilty of the government like providing good health care for sick people is
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because a couple that can't have children should foot the bill for the expenses involved, not society.
That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. If so, then a couple should be receiving state funding to have abortions. This is a horrible idea. If you can't have kids, then you can't have kids, and it should be up to you to afford the expenses, if needed. Oh my goodness, we already have enough children in the world.
Posted by: PointlessElbert47absolutely not
there are enough kids here in need of homes
Posted by: AnonymousThere are too many children in the world who need loving homes to give funding to couples who can't conceive their own child.
People who are unable to conceive should try adoption. If they are given funding for any reason, it should be to fund an adoption. There is no way to justify giving money to create more children when there isn't enough money to educate the children we already have. There are many many way I can think of that would be a better use of government funds.
Posted by: TownNoamNo
There are already too many people in the world using up resources and driving prices up. If you want a kid but can't conceive one, adopt! There are plenty of children in the world who don't have parents and suffer because of it.
Posted by: Anonymous