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.

 

[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.

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.