Should Women Aged 40 To 42 And Lesbians Get Fertility Treatment Free Of Charge?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281402/5-000-children-father-born-fertility-treatment-And-lesbians-IVF-taxpayer.html

/// And – despite fears the cash-strapped health service cannot afford extra burdens – women in same-sex relationships with proven infertility will also be able to get free IVF. Up until now, lesbian couples have had to pay privately for such treatment. ///

[LoftyLottie]

Life is unfair Ann. I often wonder about the casual stance taken by a lot of youngsters who get pregnant without even wanting too when so many people can't have children who long to have a family and would make wonderful parents.

[emmie]

whether one has a baby at 40 or 45 by the time the child is 20 you will be a pensioner, that is of course the government doesn't up this to 100 before collecting the pittance they allow. I don't see what the sexuality of the person is either. I do think it is better all round to have children when you are young, leaving it late or later offers up many more complications.

[LoftyLottie]

Had my child at just 36. A good age for me. I was more patient, had done a lot with my life and was ready to settle down and put my child first. Still young enough to run about and enjoy life with him. He never even realised I was an 'elderly Mum'. I acted a lot younger and did more with him that a lot of the younger ones.

[Ann]

Totally agree Lottie, a young girl my Hubby worked with had 2 abortions while we were going for treatment - dreadful to deal with.

[New Judge]

I think it's probably a given that women in both categories would do their best to provide a loving home for their child, Lottie and although I understand a bit better now, I’m not entirely clear. You said:

“I don't think women should have children after nature does it's work to stop them”

Surely nature is doing its work to prevent lesbians having children in just the same way as it prevents older women from having children. I note you believe there is a good reason for not procreating at an older age but do not believe there is a good reason if you are lesbian. Nature seems to think differently. Does your reasoning not fly in the face of nature? Sorry to go on, but I really cannot understand how you believe it is OK to combat nature’s intentions (with which, incidentally, I entirely agree) in one instance but not in the other.

[FredPuli43]

One of the consequences of the natural condition of homosexuality is that homosexuals cannot have children, NJ ? Or is that not what you intended your posts to be understood to say?

[Bazile]

//How else can Lesbians have children other than by IVF?

err sqad, turkey baster? :-) //

What - do you mean implanting a fertilised egg ?

[magsmay]

@em
//whether one has a baby at 40 or 45 by the time the child is 20 you will be a pensioner, that is of course the government doesn't up this to 100 before collecting the pittance they allow. I don't see what the sexuality of the person is either. I do think it is better all round to have children when you are young, leaving it late or later offers up many more complications.//

Often older people have more disposable income -have got to the peak of their earning capacity and can spare more time for their children. 'Pensioners' as you call them are no more frail old has beens incapable of looking after children than you are -what about all these grandparents that are 'grannie daycare' for their kids off-spring? If the mother is not pre-menopausal or beyond then age should not come into it - but they should not get it free at any age.

[emmie]

grand parents have at least the luxury of handing the children back when the day is over, as most grand parents will tell you. You can love the grand chlldren to pieces, but it isn't that one is decrepit, just that i am sure at 60 or over your don't have as much energy. As to disposal income, really?

[magsmay]

em LOL! I am in a riding club where around 25% of the members are over 60 -we compete on our horses endurance riding -some members do 80km a day at a fast pace - our oldest member is 82 and still does pleasure rides up to 25km - to get your horses fit enough to do this sort of thing you must ride them 5-6 days a week at trot and canter for at least an hour - you are obviously very young to have such an ageist view lol!

[New Judge]

Yes, fred, you put it most succinctly: One of the consequences of the natural condition of homosexuality is that homosexuals cannot have children. And one of the consequences of the natural condition of ageing is that older women cannot have children.

What I cannot understand with Lottie's argument is that she supports state-funded treatment to combat the former but suggests the latter should not be funded. She suggests that "discrimination" (her term, but not one that would say is appropriate here) on the grounds of age is OK, but that on the grounds of sexual orientation is not.

[boxtops]

I don't think it should be free for ANYONE. Not everyone has a right to have children. There will be circumstances where fertility treatment might be provided (by exception than by rule).

[FredPuli43]

NJ, I am not following how homosexuals cannot, because of their 'natural condition' have children. History is full of examples of homosexual men who have fathered children. There is no physical reason why a lesbian, rather than a heterosexual woman cannot have children; I myself know of one who was married and is a mother of two children and there must be others, surely, who have had children by natural insemination without marrying. The desire to become a mother may easily outweigh any lack of lustful feelings towards the opposite sex. (It may do so in the absence of such feeiings towards the partner in heterosexuals, but that's another matter!)

[New Judge]

Yes, fully agree, fred.

I think in the scenario that this question relates to I (perhaps foolishly) considered that a lesbian couple might well (a) want to remain faithful to each other or (b) find the prospect of heterosexual relations too abhorrent to consider (or perhaps even both).

Despite my apparent lack of understanding I've actually no problem at all with lesbians conceiving any way they choose, be it conventionally, with a turkey baster or via IVF. I've far greater concerns about young women bearing children when they clearly have no means to support them either financially or emotionally than I have of lesbians who, in my experience usually present as well rounded and sensible individuals. As I've said in response to many questions along these lines I don't care what any consenting adults get up to as long as it does not affect me and that I do not have to watch it or (most importantly as far as this question goes) pay for it. And I guess that identifies the crux of the matter.

[emmie]

mags not at all, but do have a very aged mother, who sometimes babysits for the grand children, and she knows like i do that having children late in life can be life enhancing, but also much more exhausting.

[boxtops]

My mother was 47 when she had my brother (by natural methods) - that was 50-odd years ago, she was something of a medical phenomenon in those days.

[susanxx]

Being a lesbian is a lifestyle choice?........ Anyway back to the question, no to ivf, and yes the NHS should be for treating the sick and this may include plastic surgery. If it is meant to be that you have children so be it, otherwise, sadly for some, you either pay for it yourself or look at adoption.

[joko]

i dont think lesbians should get free IVF treatment, unless they actually need it!

if they want it simply because they dont want to go near a real man and a penis -then its tough sh!t - thats how babies are made and being a lesbian does not mean you should be able to get unnecessary expensive stuff free.

a turkey baster and a donor is all most will need.

[baza]

sometimes, whichever bus you catch, the tubes, pipes eggs etc do not function as nature intended and needs a little help.