Who should be eligible for IVF treatment?

[BUBBALOUIS]

Debate is raging in Melbourne since the Federal Court over ruled State laws allowing women with 'psycological' infertility to have access to IVF ..... this means women in Lesbian relationships who cant sleep with men, but also includes women rape victims and even women who havent found the right partner in the court case ....

Thi one is a tough one for me, i believe single parents do a wonderful job in most cases raising well rounded kids ..... but was the IVF programme devised to create single parents?

Will the taxpayer have to fund the procedure, so lesbian women can have a lifestyle choice not available to single men? What if thes created single parents then go on a single person allowance?

Id like to hear some others thoughts on this subject as im in a dilemma as to what i think about the issue

[vanders]

I cant believe that the courts could do that

The IVF Program was brought in to help people who were physically uncapabe of having babies, not for every tom **** and harry who doesnt wat to sleep with a man, cant hold a man, and the rest of them., and thats the way it should stay

[Pessimistic]

Whenever these issues get raised the authorities involved always stress that only a very few people actually take advantage of it. So you needn't worry the country will be overrun.

There have to be more pressing issues concerning children.

[TigerTank]

Kind of against all IVF really.

[sbagman]

Well.... I used to think it should be infertile couples only, but I think I agree with TT now.... too many question marks over the whole thing.

[Bee]

Originally posted by TigerTank
Kind of against all IVF really.

Even for couples who are genuinely incapable of conceiving naturally?

[Visro]

I'm not really sure so I didn't vote. IVF is creating a baby through science right? If so, I would tend to be against it.

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Visro
I'm not really sure so I didn't vote. IVF is creating a baby through science right? If so, I would tend to be against it.


Vis i know how you feel, i have seen first hand the joy it brings to couples who cannot concieve naturally , so i am for it in those situations ....... but i just cant bring myself to agree with it extended in other circumstances .....

From talk back radio last night it would seem the Federal Court is way out of touch with public opinion ...... where will it end?

[Bloodstained Angel]

IVF should be available to everyone and anyone.

What gives anybody the right to say who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have children ?

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
IVF should be available to everyone and anyone.

What gives anybody the right to say who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have children ?


BSA , that was my initial reaction, but there should be restrictions on IVF treatments, for example, would you allow convicted paedophiles access to IVF? I know this is an extreme example, im just trying to highlight that there is circumstances where people shouldnt be considered ....... there is from what i can gather a waiting list for IVF treatment as well, so should it be first in best dressed, or are there more deserving groups? Remember this is an expensive treatment part funded by the tax payer, shouldnt we have some say in where those dollars are spent? Should we deliberately be creating single parent families?

Having said all that im not convinced myself that what im arguing is right .......

[TigerTank]

Originally posted by Bee


Even for couples who are genuinely incapable of conceiving naturally?

Yes! Even then.

[Mcchawk]

As a taxpayer (always wanted to use that line!) I think this whole topic is a disgrace. The IVF program should be only for couples (man and woman) who can't conceive a child. Single women and lesbian couples have to realise you need a man to have a child otherwise it's impossible! They've picked that lifestyle.I don't wish to talk anymore on this I disguisted on the whole topic.:mad:

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Mcchawk
As a taxpayer (always wanted to use that line!) I think this whole topic is a disgrace. The IVF program should be only for couples (man and woman) who can't conceive a child. Single women and lesbian couples have to realise you need a man to have a child otherwise it's impossible! They've picked that lifestyle.I don't wish to talk anymore on this I disguisted on the whole topic.:mad:


but Mcchawk if we dont talk about these issues then how will your point of view be expressed? Then the vocal minority wins, thats why its important to guage what public sentiment is, only then ... maybe ..... the powers that be might listen

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS



but Mcchawk if we dont talk about these issues then how will your point of view be expressed? Then the vocal minority wins, thats why its important to guage what public sentiment is, only then ... maybe ..... the powers that be might listen

Bubba I agree but I was a bit shy?!?!? to put done a few other things.I think and this is my opinon everyone else. If single women were given the right to this I think they should have to prove themselves financially, I'm a taxpayer and don't want to be picking up the tab for Mary who's school friend is also having a child so she will as well. I think parenting should be between a man and a woman to give the child a well balanced mind, you can't tell me a single woman only can give this?Psychologically scarred women I believe shouldn't get rights to conceive because if they're already psychologically scarred how are they going to bring up a child when they can't even live day to day themselves? And last lesbians what a joke this is. All I can say is what someone on 3AW said yesterday "you can't put a square peg in a round hole" They chose chicks and they should live with that decision.Bubba I feel passionate about this issue because I don't believe a court should play God, what will the world end up like if these changes go ahead? My last point is who are the men giving the sperm for the IVF program? Do you think number's will drop if these new criteria comes in? Pardon the pun.

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

i believe ivf should be available to infertile couples and lesbian couples. i don't think that single women under any circumstances should be allowed access to ivf.

the ideal scenario for raising a child is to have two parents. obviously circumstances can change and one parent may have to raise the child alone and that's fair enough, but to deliberately start a family with only one parent is unfair on the child so i believe is wrong.

[Fat Red]

I think subsidised IVF should only be available to women who cannot conceive naturally.

If this isn't you, and you want to pay for it yourself, then be my guest.

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by StrengthThroughLoyalty
i believe ivf should be available to infertile couples and lesbian couples. i don't think that single women under any circumstances should be allowed access to ivf.

the ideal scenario for raising a child is to have two parents. obviously circumstances can change and one parent may have to raise the child alone and that's fair enough, but to deliberately start a family with only one parent is unfair on the child so i believe is wrong.

STL I agree with you to a degree but isn't this discriminatory to single women? You'll bound to get some single woman take this to court.I've put down what I think and yes I'm in the same boat, this is a very difficult topic. All because of discrimination, like when the Government of the day makes a decision someone's bound to cry not fair. I think the line should be drawn and kept at that. For better or worse, may'be a census could be the answer?

[StrengthThroughLoyalty]

maybe the only equitable solution would be a case by case scenario with a weighting scale that would give priority to infertile married couples and leave single psycholocically scarred women at the bottom of the scale.

i agree with fat red though that only infertile married couples should have any sort of subsidy.

[mantis]

Originally posted by Fat Red
I think subsidised IVF should only be available to women who cannot conceive naturally.

If this isn't you, and you want to pay for it yourself, then be my guest.

I agree with that Fat Red, infertile married or de facto couples should have it subsidised, while others have to pay for it.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by sbagman
Well.... I used to think it should be infertile couples only, but I think I agree with TT now.... too many question marks over the whole thing.

I will be sure to tell my sister that who was conceived with ground breaking IVF technology 8 years ago.

Since then my step mum has had two more children naturally

I think its a little arrogant (not deliberate I know) to make such statements when not having children can cause so much pain for married couples, leaving the other issues aside.

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Mcchawk


Bubba I agree but I was a bit shy?!?!? to put done a few other things.I think and this is my opinon everyone else. If single women were given the right to this I think they should have to prove themselves financially, I'm a taxpayer and don't want to be picking up the tab for Mary who's school friend is also having a child so she will as well. I think parenting should be between a man and a woman to give the child a well balanced mind, you can't tell me a single woman only can give this?Psychologically scarred women I believe shouldn't get rights to conceive because if they're already psychologically scarred how are they going to bring up a child when they can't even live day to day themselves? And last lesbians what a joke this is. All I can say is what someone on 3AW said yesterday "you can't put a square peg in a round hole" They chose chicks and they should live with that decision.Bubba I feel passionate about this issue because I don't believe a court should play God, what will the world end up like if these changes go ahead? My last point is who are the men giving the sperm for the IVF program? Do you think number's will drop if these new criteria comes in? Pardon the pun.


I don' know what the answer is but its certainly not as simple as you make out.

you seem to be suggesting single mothers would only have children for the wrong reasons. This is clearly not the case.

As far as whehter a child needs both male and female role models - I think the jury is still out on that one.

[Visro]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
What gives anybody the right to say who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have children ?

I think you might find its called nature...

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by Jars458



I don' know what the answer is but its certainly not as simple as you make out.

you seem to be suggesting single mothers would only have children for the wrong reasons. This is clearly not the case.

As far as whehter a child needs both male and female role models - I think the jury is still out on that one.

I never said it was an easy decision to make and I never said it was simple.

As for single mother's I'm trying to say that it would be better if you had two parents.

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Jars458



I don' know what the answer is but its certainly not as simple as you make out.

you seem to be suggesting single mothers would only have children for the wrong reasons. This is clearly not the case.

As far as whehter a child needs both male and female role models - I think the jury is still out on that one.


Jars, i have to disagree, i dont think the jury is out, i know some wonderful single mums who have raised great kids, but the ones i know at least have commented that ideally a male influence or father figure would have made a positive difference. There is also a group called Big Brother in Melbourne which i was involved in which specifically sets out to provide positive male influences for children in single parent environs, this is not a slur on the mothers it just recognises the value of both ...

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Jars458


I will be sure to tell my sister that who was conceived with ground breaking IVF technology 8 years ago.


Sorry Jars, just my opinion. Unless discrimination is applied to who can access this technology, I think it's a pandora's box.

And I know people are going to say "it's their right to have a child", well if they could naturally, then fine. But I think having access to this technology is a privilige, not a right.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
What gives anybody the right to say who should and who shouldn't be allowed to have children ?

What gives anybody the right to say who can and can't kill? Drive? Drink? Burgle? Vote?

For all that, what "rights" do we have at all?

Is having a child a "right" or a responsibility?

Are children commodities that people purchase?

[Bloodstained Angel]

sorry people - some very unconvicing arguements here ...

If the technology is available - then it should be available to everyone regardless of who they are and what their circumstances are.

Lesbians and single parents pay taxes as well - they are perfectly entitled to have access to this technology.

and to those who say a child is better with a father and a mother - maybe but it doesn't often happen that way.

Surely the best thing you can give your child is love - it doesn't matter how many parents are around or what their proivate lifestyle choices are, it does not make one single scarp of difference.

oh and by the way - the Federal Court is not 'out of step' as some say. The Federal Court has made a decision based on the law - and the law says that to discriminate against a person just because of their personal circumstances is unlawful

and to those that say that IVF is 'unnatural' - well, it happens doesn't it ?

How can something that happens be 'unatural' ?

and what is your definition of 'natural' anyway ?

Just because you may personally be uncomfortable with the idea of a lesbian having a kid through IVF - that most certainly does not make it wrong.

Nobody should be denied the opportunity to have a child - nobody.

and yes Bubba, even paedophiles.

But I must say - is there such a thing as a female paedophile ?

cheers

[CJH]

Pandora's box? Where does it end? Will it evolve to the point that males are no longer required for husbandry and are just relegated to being female fun toys?

To me, this appears to be the only logical conclusion once Pandora's box is emptied.

What then? Do we then put science on the chase of evolving males to be able to conceive and reproduce on their own? All in a bid to remain relevant! :(

[Jars458]

Originally posted by BUBBALOUIS



Jars, i have to disagree, i dont think the jury is out, i know some wonderful single mums who have raised great kids, but the ones i know at least have commented that ideally a male influence or father figure would have made a positive difference. There is also a group called Big Brother in Melbourne which i was involved in which specifically sets out to provide positive male influences for children in single parent environs, this is not a slur on the mothers it just recognises the value of both ...

Fair call

But a child can have a positive male role model who is not in the "Father" role so to speak, ie friend of the family etc

I saw an article recently which said that it can be argued that if a child is to have a single parent that a male single parent could be better

I really think it comes down to the parent.

Its no good having both if they are both complete bastards and useless parents.

I guess its hard to know who will be a good parent and who will be a bad parent though.

Perhaps couples should not automaitcally have the right to ahve children until they can show they could be good parents

Now there's some controversy for you.

[sbagman]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel

If the technology is available - then it should be available to everyone regardless of who they are and what their circumstances are.


Why?

Why is modern technology automatically a good thing?

[BrisGirl]

It amuses me when you have a woman demanding IVF because she could not stand the thought of a man and the natural way of conceiving a baby.

What does she do if she gives birth to a boy?

To conceive, you require a mans contribution. I find it a little contradictory, if the Lesbian is that offended by anything male, how can she stand the sperm that is required, to be in her body for the conception?


I put it in the same train of thought as what the Taliban do regarding their women and how they despise them and have no regard for them as human beings.

How do they think they came to be here on earth.....it was by a woman through the birth canal.

It makes no sense, either of them.

[Fat Red]

BSA, discriminating against people because they are lesbians or single is illegal and probably wrong.

However, if you are not infertile, why should the community subsidise something that is not a medical problem. you are perfectly capable of having children naturally, just choose not to. For good reasons no doubt, but why do we have to pay for that choice?

I don't say we should discriminate against people on the basis of anything other than whether they need the treatment.

[TigerTank]

In my opinion they shouldn't have f#cked around with this kind of technology in the first place. Too open to abuse.

[Gonzo]

Originally posted by CJH
Pandora's box? Where does it end? Will it evolve to the point that males are no longer required for husbandry and are just relegated to being female fun toys?



Not even then!!!

As soon as they can invent a vibrator that can open a jar and change a tyre - WE'RE GAWN!!! :D

Cheers

Gonzo

[BUBBALOUIS]

Originally posted by Gonzo


Not even then!!!

As soon as they can invent a vibrator that can open a jar and change a tyre - WE'RE GAWN!!! :D

Cheers

Gonzo

True Gonz, but all we need to do is invent breasts on lampposts :D Whoops, did i say that.lol Sorry :o

[Mcchawk]

My question is if the criteria changes lesbians, single women etc do you think the number of sperm donors will decrease? Because without this vital ingredient you ain't going no where.

Also I feel it being discriminatory to the single male, why can't I have a child?

[Dave]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
sorry people - some very unconvicing arguements here ...

If the technology is available - then it should be available to everyone regardless of who they are and what their circumstances are.

Why? Give me a "convincing arguement" rather than just a pov ;)

Lesbians and single parents pay taxes as well - they are perfectly entitled to have access to this technology.

Says who? Who determines what entitlements we have?

Surely the best thing you can give your child is love

Agree 100%

- it doesn't matter how many parents are around or what their proivate lifestyle choices are, it does not make one single scarp of difference.

That's not quite true, having more than one parent around does help as would having a role model to base your behaviour on.

oh and by the way - the Federal Court is not 'out of step' as some say.

Really? According to who? You? Me? If a majority of people disagree with a decision then it is out of step.

The Federal Court has made a decision based on the law - and the law says that to discriminate against a person just because of their personal circumstances is unlawful

A decisions' lawfullness is not what determines whether a decision is out of step with community attitudes.

Just because you may personally be uncomfortable with the idea of a lesbian having a kid through IVF - that most certainly does not make it wrong.

What defines "wrong"? Is it you? Me? Some ethereal ideal that does not rely on the whims of man?

Nobody should be denied the opportunity to have a child - nobody.

I disagree, but I'll get into trouble if I go into more detail ;)

But I must say - is there such a thing as a female paedophile ?

For the record, yes.

[vanders]

The way i see it is, if you have the ability to concieve a baby naturally, you shouldnt have the option of IVF treatment, whether you are gay, straight, sideways or upside down.

[iceman]

IVF treatment should only be offered to couples who are unable to conceive naturally

using this kind of treatment for lesbians or single woman who wish to become parents shouldnt be allowed

[Olmy]

Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
But I must say - is there such a thing as a female paedophile ?


You'd be surprised.

[gordon carlyon]

As a father (twice) of IVF children I can advise you that you are subsidised by the government for 6 cycles but there is still a shortfall of about $800.

After that you have to pay the $3000-4000 each cycle costs.

In my view the technology should only be available to those who cannot conceive naturally.

My only fallback would be that they can access the technology if it is not subsidised if they are not medically infertile.

Of course if they are not medically infertile, they can invest in a turkey baster as many do if they want to save the money. I dont think they should get access to sperm donors.

[Grendel]

Well, as a principle, im only for the 'those who cannot otherwise conceive' camp.

I guess it comes down to personal choice. If I were, as Gordon has, to donate sperm to help create a life. Id be very concerned over where and what that donation would bring about.

A stable (hopefully) 'normal' family environment to an otherwise childless couple, yes id donate for that.

However, if a lesbian couple, single women were to ask for my sperm to conceive, then id refuse.

Id also want the right to know that my 'ahem' donation was only going to be used for the man/woman scenario.

I have a gut feeling most men would lean toward my thinking in most cases.

Lesbian, single women might call it an outrage, to me its a biological fact. They cant conceive without men, we cant get pregnant. Just as an aside, how many men would carry a child if the technology was available and what sort of community backlash would happen if homosexual men were then able to have access to have children through that technology?

Would the 'open-mindedness' of lesbian parenting be the same for male homosexuals? Again, I kind of doubt it.

[mandy]

The only thing that disturbs me more than the topic of this thread is the opinions of some of the posts.

How do people become so judgemental and discriminating? How dare we sit here and believe we can even discuss something so personal and heartbreaking to others.

I hope nobody here ever has to go through the tragedy of discovering you can't have a child naturally. And by naturally, I mean infertile couples AND anyone else who chooses to have a child but doesn't have an option of conceiving. Regardless of some opinions here, conceiving a child by hetrosexual sex is not "natural" for a lesbian.

Because at the end of the day, it's a choice. A personal choice for a woman to decide she wants to be a mother. Who are we, as individuals and as a country, to take that decision away from them?

So many children are born every day to irresponsible, unfit parents. I would much prefer to know a child is bought into the world and raised by someone who desperately wants them and will love them. Whoever they may be - couples, gays or singles.

Of course it should be on a case by case scenario. But I think anyone who can prove to be a fit, loving and responsible person should be given a chance to be a parent.

I was lucky that I conceived naturally. And through that, I have learnt the great joy of being a parent. I hate to think that someone who wants what I have can be denied. It's the greatest gift in the world.

[Fat Red]

Originally posted by mandy5
The only thing that disturbs me more than the topic of this thread is the opinions of some of the posts.

How do people become so judgemental and discriminating? How dare we sit here and believe we can even discuss something so personal and heartbreaking to others.

Because we are paying for it.

I hope nobody here ever has to go through the tragedy of discovering you can't have a child naturally.
so do we all I hope

And by naturally, I mean infertile couples AND anyone else who chooses to have a child but doesn't have an option of conceiving. Regardless of some opinions here, conceiving a child by hetrosexual sex is not "natural" for a lesbian.

Because at the end of the day, it's a choice. A personal choice for a woman to decide she wants to be a mother. Who are we, as individuals and as a country, to take that decision away from them?

We are not taking it away from them. They never had it until IVF was invented. We are discussing whether it is right to GIVE to them a choice they didn't have before this technology.

It is appropriate for any new technology for society to decide both who it is available to, and especially who pays for it. I am happy to pay taxes, but I get a say in what they are used for--democracy. And I don't want my taxes used to pay for IVF for those who are not medically prevented from conceiving naturally.



So many children are born every day to irresponsible, unfit parents. I would much prefer to know a child is bought into the world and raised by someone who desperately wants them and will love them. Whoever they may be - couples, gays or singles.

Of course it should be on a case by case scenario. But I think anyone who can prove to be a fit, loving and responsible person should be given a chance to be a parent.

I was lucky that I conceived naturally. And through that, I have learnt the great joy of being a parent. I hate to think that someone who wants what I have can be denied. It's the greatest gift in the world. [/B]