Category: Let's talk
A woman in oxfordshire wants to make history by giving birth to her lesbian partner's baby by using IVF. The couple feel that this is the only way they will both be part of the baby. The egg will be that of the one partner, it will be fertilized and then implanted into the other woman who will then hopefully become pregnant and have the baby. Not only that, they think the NHS should pay for it. So what do you peeps think? should a same sex couple be allowed to go through this in order to have a child together? After all, if you choose to have a same sex partner, nature did not intend for women to have babies with women, should they not just accept that their lifestyle choice means they will not be able to have children? after all, it is only science that will allow this to happen? please no homophobic comments ... how people choose to conduct relationships is entirely their choice, i'm referring purely to the need/wish etc to have a child, and whether the tax payer should be paying for it.
The technology today is amazing. I don't think that these people should be restricted. There are many things nature didn't intend, yet they happen. I'm amazed that it is possible for those women to do what they are doing, but if it all works then they should be proud of their achievement. I think it's interesting that there would probably be more of an upraw if they were to get married when it is quite likely that most of the people who would cause the upraw don't believe ein children been born out of wedlock.
Hmm, I'm not sure. In a way the same can be said for people who are with partners that for some reason are not fertile, you can claim nature did not intend for those partners having babies either, or people that are too old to have kids the natural way (anyone saw the news on the 67 year old woman who gave birth to a child, think it was in Ukraine or something like that).
i'd have to agree though that I feel gay or lesbian lifepartners should accept, in a way, that their life style choice traditionally means they can't have children naturally, nd there are some social concerns (or psychological I should rather say) about children of same sex partners, whether and how they are affected by their "parents" choice of life style, but that's more of a social issue than anything else.
So, I kind of agree on the logic that these people probably should be restricted somehow, at least should pay part of it but at the same time I think it's discriminatory to make them pay and not make people who are e.g. too old or just naturally infertile get this treatment for free, just because, well, because they have a partner of the opposite sex.
Cheers
-B
Well I equally do not agree that a 67 year old woman should have been allowed to have a child, under any circumstances. After all, she would have been at child bearing age at some point in her life, nature makes women lose the ability to have children at a certain age for a reason, the reason being that there is increased risk to the mother and child during pregnancy, also what of the child, she'll probably be dead before that child is 18, and in my view, her having a baby at that age was incredibly selfish and should never have been allowed.
As for infertile couples being entitled to free treatment.. well I do believe that the health service is overstretched as it is, and whilst I realize how hard it must be to go through the heartache of infertility, I do believe that we should be aiming to treat existing patients, before putting money into creating more life.
SB, yeap, agreed on all points really, but my big point is that we should treat those people the same way whether ti's their age, their condition or their sexual preference that prevents them from having kids the natural way.
I agree in two instances there, sexual preference and infertility should be treated as one. if a woman wishes to undergo IVF treatment in order to have a child, then that is her perogative, but I do not believe the health service should have to pay for it. however, on age I believe there should be an age limit, say 40, and that's just my personal view, and actually I think that 40 is too old but I guess we have to be a bit lenient there, but once a woman passes that age, I don't think it is morally or ethically right to allow her to bear a child. especially not in the case of a 67 year old woman who we know full well will probably not live another 20 years.
Well, I personally think that 40 is a bit on the low side actually, I nkow of quite a few women who have had healthy children at 40 the natural way and people live a lot longer (on verage) than they used to do so I'd draw the line at 45 personally. And, yeah, I think that couple who so badly want to have kids and cannot do that should show that by contributing some of the costs for an ivf, if not all of it, if only to show that they are really committed to wanting tohave a kid. Some could argue "what about those who can't afford to save up, say 2000 pounds" well, then I don't know why they would want to have a child that they apparently can't really afford to bring up decently even. Of course that's a bitof a biast selection though but I think the role of the health services is really to preserve the lives that we got already and like sb said they are stretched as is doing that so if we want to add more lives to the planet I think that's largely our repsponsibility and peole who need help with that should then do whatever they can to finance such help and not strain the funds given to maintaining current lives.
well I think the age limit is a personal thing of course, as to whether the health service should pay, the average IVF cycle costs £3000 in this country, (dependent on where you're treated of course), but the success rate is still relatively low, 30% success rate if one embrio is implanted and 40% is two are put back, so there is a high chance of having to undergo more than one cycle of IVF treatment. So that being the case, where would you draw the line at how much the health service should pay for. personally I think that nothing is the best approach, as, as stated above, money is best spent elsewhere.
Personally I wouldn'T do this but if people really want to, they should definitely be allowed to.
The only reason there should be an age limit on people having children is because of the decay of their minds once they get too old. People age at different rates but I think that 45 is definitely a good enough cut off point. As for the psychology of the child with two female parents, well there's plenty of children gone wrong who have male and female parents. How many people who broke the law had two parents from the same genda? I don't think that people with two parents of the same genda would become any worse than people with two parents of different gendas. There is no reason therefore as to why homosexuals should be restricted. Otherwise we should get rid of medical care since it's not natural for major infections to just go away. We should also not give charity to anyone because if people are dying because there's a drout, it's nature deciding things yet again. Basically what I'm saying is that what's natural shouldn't necessary dictate what happens.
WW, yes, actually it is a very good point. I'm not saying that anyone,per say, should be prevented or banned from having kids, I think the question is basically more when can we justiffy using taxpayer dollars or money from social security to pay for such things. If it's something that people want but isnot necessary to them like wanting to have a child when they can't, whatever the reason is, well, I don't think money should be taken from treating the sick and providing operations to cancer patients or victims of accidents etc to allocate to them,they should then save up for it, just like they would save up for a car or ahouse, if they areally want it that bad they can afford 3000 pounds to pay for such a treatment, or at least then they should be a part of it, half, may be more, may be less, but I don't think they shouldjust get such treatment completely for free, same with plastic surgeries e.g. if they want to look good and it'snot the result of an accident or medical msitake or some other procedure where their looks were damaged I don't think money should be taken from essential research etc to allocate to them.
Cheers
-B
Yeah I agree they should have to pay for it. The only treatment that should be free should be given to ill people who haven't made themselves ill. Anything else should be paid for and if they can't afford it, they can't have it. Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for people to have babies, sex changes, or anything else they want but don't need.
no no agree with wildebrew, apart from people of a certain age, I don't think anyone should be prevented from having children either - I just don't think the taxpayer should have to pay for it.
It seems to be easy for those to speak who know they're fertile, or, simply haven't been put to the test yet...However, as far as babies being a "want"? That isn't the case for some. It can actually become a physical need that effects a person psychologically and physically. Another point. At least here unwanted babies are paid for to get rid of, so, why shouldn't wanted babies be paid for to be here? I'm not saying the parents shouldn't contribute greatly, but why totally exclude them from getting help?
Actually WC I know exactly where I’m coming from on this one. It took me over a year to become pregnant with my son, and while by comparison a year is not all that long, it is a long time when all your friends around you are becoming pregnant within the first month of trying.
However, I have seen what the need to have a baby can do to a person, and so often, to a relationship. The desire to have a baby escalates, and with every negative pregnancy test, every failed IVF attempt, it changes from a desire to have something that is part of your life, to being your life. Until eventually it is not just a desire, not just a need, but an obsession, and I mean that with the greatest respect to anyone who has had to go through infertility.
But it is a sad fact that this need to have a baby can take over a woman’s life to the exclusion of everything else, and I say a woman, because, even though guys do have the desire to become parents, that desire is not such a biological one as it is for a woman. I know women who have been through as many as 10 IVF attempts, and for anyone who has never been through, or knows anyone who has been through IVF, the procedure involved is not an easy one. It involves a lot of emotional change, due to hormones you have to take, a lot of waiting, and the procedure for egg collection is quite invasive. And at 3 grand a time, the financial price of wanting a baby can be quite high, and after 10 IVF attempts, you could be stuck with £30000 of debt and nothing to show for it. And often the only reason these couples give up their battle to have a baby is because they can no longer afford to go through another IVF cycle, but I think it is a sad fact that if the health service were to pay for these procedures, then some couples would continue to go through IVF cycle after IVF cycle despite the fact that realistically they should perhaps accept after maybe 2 or three attempts that they will never become parents.
Many women do admit after they have finally consceeded that they cannot have a baby, that it is like a weight being lifted off their shoulders, because the issue of a baby took over their life for such a long time that they actually did not have a life.
If the health service were to pay for IVF you would have to draw a line. They couldn’t continually fund IVF attempts for couples who realistically just will never have a baby, and I therefore stand by what I said in a previous post, that it should be all or nothing, and as the health service cannot afford to fund unlimited fertility treatments for infertile couples, I believe that they should not fund any of them, and should therefore put funding into treating existing conditions.
I agree. There should be an age limit, but anyway - peple who want to do it, should do it.
Ok, can someone clear something up? Does the health service usually pay for such a thing? If so, then absolutely these women should be no different. On the actual procedure, bravo to these ladies; a clever way to both biologically be apart. I believe a couple in New Jersey did this successfully, and if I'm not mistaken, they both got their names on the birth certificate.
As far as gay couple haveing babies...hmmm. Part of me says go for it! Part of me says, this is a great opportunity for you to adopt. There are plenty of kids in this world that need loving homes.
Sheesh, I can't believe the health service may pay for so much. Far different than America.
well actually whether or not the health service will pay for the procedure depends very much on where you live. Its a bit like a post code lottery. some health authorities will currently fun one cycle of IVF whereas some won't fund any. The health authority for the county where I live do not fund IVF so if ever I was going to undergo the treatment, I would have to pay for it. This is something the government over here is looking to change though as they see it as being unfair.
As for someone adopting .. well to be totally honest, I think it does take a certain kind of person to be able to adopt a child, and also, very rarely are babies available to adopt, which is often what parents want, and older children often come with added problems they have aquired from their previous life, abuce etc, and a lot of people would find it difficult to take that on. So I can see why someone would choose not to adopt.
As for both parties having their names on the birth certificate, I don't believe this would be allowed in this country, in fact, the law is a bit strange on that ground, the birth mother, i.e. the one who caried the child, is the one who would be on the birth certificate, even though she biologically is not related to the baby. Going off topic now but .. I watched a programme once on surrogacy and a woman who carried her sister's twins actually had to put her name on the birth certificate because she had given birth to them, even though they were her sister's embrios.
I will say that I agree with most replies here, but I will add a question: How many of you are middle aged and have the experiences a middle aged person has? How can you judge people when you have not gone through at least have of your life span to understand that what we want and what we need changes constantly and somethings that you might say at 20 "Oh! I will never do that" or "Hoe can someone want this" can change when you are 40, 50 or 60! People who want to have a child should have a child NO MATTER WHAT! It is a fundamental human right and it is not age restricted, not mental age restricted (back in the 50s and 70s people would sterilize mentally retarded people), not physical condition restricted (blind people used to have to give their kids away for adoption, too), or sexual preference restricted! Now, if the woman was living alone and did not have a lesbian partner, and wanted a child, she could have one through artificial insemination what they used to call a test tube baby. SO why NOT a woman who has a LESBIAN PARTNER? The baby will not be born from the genes of both women. It will be one woman's egg, and the other woman's womb that will carry the baby. The sperm will be a donor. I see it as the same with a couple who can't consive, the husband or wife provide one of the parts, a donor the other and a surrogate mother carries the baby. It has happened before. Why not for this couple? Just because they are TWO women and not a man and a woman? Shame on you guys. You are like those people who once believed that blind people should only marry another blind person. No one can tell whom you may or may NOT fall in love with! Star
Star, you hve not been reading what we've said very carefully nowhave you? We said everyone had a right tohave a baby but that the money for these things should not be taken out of the health sector budget (and hence our taxes) and if peple who cannot have babies really want them they should pay for that treatment or at least a part of that treatment themselves. If they can afford it that's great if they can't, well, they can get together and set up a fund or lottery or other charitable organization and help each other out financially to bring other kidsinto this world. One does not "need" to have a child, one may want so very strongly in fact but you can't claim that one "needs" to have a child. I've never heard of "a blind person should only marry another blind person" attitude before, actually to the contrary, I'veheard blind people shouldn't marry each other, it make things easier to marry a sighted person but ultimately marry the person you are in love with and think will make you happy.
So, easy on the crticism until you've actually read what we've said eh.
cheers
-B
The point about adopting kids is a very good one, and people who can't give birth biologically should be encouraged to adopt, but if they'd rather go through the methods described at the beginning of this thread they should have to pay more to do that. This would mean that children who didn't have parens would have a better chance of been adopted and that the amount of people using frozen embrios would decrease. I believe that would be better, because at least then homosexuals could have children without using health resources. I believe they should have the choice but they should have to pay for both options with the cheapest been the adoption one.
well actually although most of us did say most people should be allowed to have a child, we did mostly say there should be an age limit, i.e. 45, some may think that age limit is too low, some may think it is too high. I still stand by what I said in a previous post that a 67 year old woman should never, ever, have been allowed to have a baby, and the mere fact that she did so is in my view, incredibly selfish, and the only person she would have been thinking of when she did that was herself, and not a single thought to her child. after all, would any of you bring a child into the world if you knew that you probably wouldn't live another 15 years so wouldn't see that child grow up, and the child wouldn't have had grandparents etc, most likely not even aunts and uncles. As a matter of fact, this particular woman originally was expecting twins, however due to complications during her pregnancy one of the twins died inutro and the other one had to be delivered prematurely.
Why not? Why shouldn't a lesbian couple adopt children? I do not understand people who are against that. Each to their own I think.
I agree that gay/lb and bi couples should be allowed to have children through artificial means,or through adoption,but I'm not happy with this couple's arrogant view that the cash strapped NHS, should fund their treatment,simply because it will set a trend which will be very difficult to discourage.
Goblin, agree with you 100%
No, they shouldn't have any extra-privilege but they have the same right to have children than we all do.
Try 7 years after losing one...However, I can totally see your point on IVF. My thoughts were more along the lines of the beginning fertility drugs. Which I can quote you cost for cost on at least here in the US. We know my problem, we know why I'm not conceiving, and we know what would solve the problem 95% chance...Believe me, I know all to well how restricting the health care system is. And while I'm thinking along the lines of what would help me, don't we all? However, on the other hand I have to disagree with it only being a "want"...It can become as powerful of a need as the need for some to see again, but yet, the first need is never considered, and the second is paid for by medical systems as long as there is a chance; at least here.
Wildbrew it seems to me that you are the one who didn't read what I wrote so let me resay it: "I will say that I agree with most replies here." I said MOST not ALL. So in English that means that there were SOME replies I did NOT agree with. Please DO read what is posted before you make an idiot of yourself! Thanks. Star
Come on, let's not make an argument out of this topic.
wc I think that if the condition is a recognizeable one, and the treatment is purely drug treatment with a high success rate, then i don't see why the health service shouldn't treat it. they would in this country ..