Pregnancy - a lifestyle choice?

3DataModem

chatterpillar wrote: »

So neither I nor Bronte nor others in our position are allowed make educated decisions about our situations (taking into account all of the risks.)

Er.... don't have sex?

3DataModem

bronte wrote: »

I'm old and mature enough to make a decision to eliminate that from my life.

Don't have sex??

bronte

3DataModem wrote: »

Er.... don't have sex?

Have you tried that? how did you get on?

metrovelvet

bronte wrote: »

Oh hey, I'm still on the fence on whether it's a lifestyle choice or not!
Yes, I am willing to chance the death if it were to prevent me having kids for good. Childbirth itself can result in death too.
I'm willing to take the gamble.
Lol on the medical experimentation!
It's very hard to describe to someone who wants kids how you do not want any.
I think someone mentioned earlier on this thread that people at opposite ends of the extreme will have trouble understanding one another.
I certainly agree with that.
All I can say is I don't want them as much as I don't want to get mown down by a lorry.
I'm actually adopted myself and it's something I don't think I could ever do (give a kid up for adoption) I suppose I'm not as selfless as my birth mother.

But a doctor or surgeon cannot put your health at risk, which is what he would be doing if s/he agreed to giving you a hysterectomy. It would be against best medical practise.

3DataModem

bronte wrote: »

Have you tried that? how did you get on?

The point I tried to (glibly) make was that heterosexual sex and pregnancy go hand in hand. You can't have one without the risk of the other without invasive and intrinsically 'harmful' medical procedures.

I respect the right for anyone to choose not to have kids, but to suggest that someone has an entitlement to choose to be permanently childless but still have sex is a different thing.

All choices have risks and consequences... the onus is on the individual to allow for those risk and consequences.

bronte

metrovelvet wrote: »

But a doctor or surgeon cannot put your health at risk, which is what he would be doing if s/he agreed to giving you a hysterectomy. It would be against best medical practise.

They're willing to preform the tubal ligation over here though, a procedure which also carries risks. Why one and not the other?

3DataModem wrote: »

The point I tried to (glibly) make was that heterosexual sex and pregnancy go hand in hand. You can't have one without the risk of the other without invasive and intrinsically 'harmful' medical procedures.

I respect the right for anyone to choose not to have kids, but to suggest that someone has an entitlement to choose to be permanently childless but still have sex is a different thing.

All choices have risks and consequences... the onus is on the individual to allow for those risk and consequences.

I have the sex drive of 17 teenage boys all rolled up into one little blonde package.
God was definitely taking the piss when he invented me. :pac:
Gonna have to disagree with you on the right to remain childless.
I do feel it is something I should have control over and the choice to eliminate if I so choose.

The Big Red Button

bronte wrote: »

I have the sex drive of 17 teenage boys all rolled up into one little blonde package.
God was definitely taking the piss when he invented me. :pac:

Ha I love it :pac:

3DataModem wrote: »

Don't have sex. There's your "choice".

Oh I'm well aware of that. If getting pregnant would be the end of the world for me, I probably would have no choice but to avoid having sex at all. However, for me, while getting pregnant would be fairly disastrous it would not be the end of the world. So I'm willing to accept the very small chance of it happening.

However this discussion is not about me, or about any other individual case.

Sex is, according to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, one of the basic fundamental physiological needs. As I would interpret the theory, having children would fit into the middle of the hierarchy - after physiological needs and safety needs are met.

Everyone has a right to have sex - some have a higher sex drive than others (as Bronte so poetically illustrated!), but it is a "need" and a right rather than an indulgence. You can't just say to someone "don't have sex"; it's not like giving up chocolate or alcohol. You're denying them one of their basic human needs.

No one should have to have children. I know of no 100% effective method of contraception for a women bar having a hysterectomy.

If a doctor is unwilling to perform a hysterectomy, and his patient is unwilling to accept any chance of pregnancy, the doctor is basically taking away the patient's right to have sex.

If the patient continues to have sex using whatever methods of contraception, and ends up pregnant, how is that in anyone's best interest? Most likely scenario - the baby gets aborted. There is a small chance the baby will be given up for adoption, but that's hardly ideal for the child. And if the mother decides to keep the baby, a child is born to a mother who was so certain that she didn't want to be a mother that she was willing to get a hysterectomy and accept all associated risks - what kind of childhood will that baby have?

Another point - there are risks associated with IVF treatment, such as liver and kidney disorders, eptopic pregnancies, and of course all of the other risks associated with any pregnancy. Yet doctors are willing to perform this arguably "unnecessary" procedure, and as far as I know the health board will even pay for it in some cases. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people getting IVF treatment and it's great that such a service is available for those who want children - but it's only right that those who don't want children should have the option of a hysterectomy, even if they've to pay for it themselves.

3DataModem

chatterpillar wrote: »

If a doctor is unwilling to perform a hysterectomy, and his patient is unwilling to accept any chance of pregnancy, the doctor is basically taking away the patient's right to have sex.

I take your point, but disagree. Everything we do has consequences... having a hysterectomy is simply taking away one of the consequences of the choice to have sex.

chatterpillar wrote: »

If the patient continues to have sex using whatever methods of contraception, and ends up pregnant, how is that in anyone's best interest? Most likely scenario - the baby gets aborted. There is a small chance the baby will be given up for adoption, but that's hardly ideal for the child.

Well what's more important, the child's happiness or the parents need to have sex? Also, giving the baby up for adoption may be best for it. Who knows?

You are saying it's either hysterectomy or adoption/abortion for those who choose not to have children. That is not a complete view.

chatterpillar wrote: »

Another point - there are risks associated with IVF treatment, such as liver and kidney disorders, eptopic pregnancies, and of course all of the other risks associated with any pregnancy. Yet doctors are willing to perform this arguably "unnecessary" procedure,

What is necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Chemotherapy is unnecessary. Laser eye surgery is unnecessary. Open heart surgery on the elderly is unnecessary.

chatterpillar wrote: »

and as far as I know the health board will even pay for it in some cases.

Not true in Ireland.

chatterpillar wrote: »

but it's only right that those who don't want children should have the option of a hysterectomy, even if they've to pay for it themselves.

I probably do agree with that statement.

However I think we need to separate this discussion from a discussion on "human rights" or "necessities". My main point is that while people can do what they like (within reason) the assumption that something is a "right" (sex, hysterectomies, IVF, children, childlessness) is possibly invalid.

// PS thanks for the cogent discussion. Better than the - ahem - hysterical* ranting that some of these threads descend to.//




*Yes sorry for the pun!

The Big Red Button

3DataModem wrote: »

Well what's more important, the child's happiness or the parents need to have sex?

In the case of a woman who does not want to become pregnant ever becoming pregnant as a result of being refused a hysterectomy ... well, if her wishes were respected in the first place, there wouldn't be an unwanted child whose happiness needs to be taken into account.

3DataModem wrote: »

Also, giving the baby up for adoption may be best for it. Who knows?

I am familiar with the stringent procedures and requirements in place for potential adoptive parents in Ireland; in my opinion many babies given for adoption in Ireland will have a much better upbringing than those kept by their parents (in certain circumstances.) I mean, anyone at all can get pregnant and keep their baby without any background checks etc.

However (1) I've no idea how many unwanted Irish pregnancies result in the baby being given up for adoption, but I'd imagine it's a very small percentage compared to pregnancies in which the parents decide on having an abortion or decide to keep the baby. (2) You can't really argue based on individual cases. Yes, one particular baby might be happier being given for adoption - but in general, wouldn't it be better if that baby had never happened? And I don't accept the argument that this particular baby might grow up to cure cancer, or bring about world peace or whatever. It could equally grow up to start WW3 or build a new type of atomic bomb or god knows what else. My point being - "what ifs" will just result in endless irrelevant philosophical debate that can never actually reach a scientifically provable* conclusion.

3DataModem wrote: »

You are saying it's either hysterectomy or adoption/abortion for those who choose not to have children. That is not a complete view.

Quoted from my previous post:

chatterpillar wrote: »

And if the mother decides to keep the baby, a child is born to a mother who was so certain that she didn't want to be a mother that she was willing to get a hysterectomy and accept all associated risks - what kind of childhood will that baby have?

3DataModem wrote: »

What is necessary or not is a matter of opinion. Chemotherapy is unnecessary. Laser eye surgery is unnecessary. Open heart surgery on the elderly is unnecessary.

With due respect, I don't really see how this adds to your argument. Yes it's a matter of opinion, yet all these procedures and many others (e.g. cosmetic surgery, stitching minor wounds, etc) are available, despite any associated risks. So why not hysterectomies?

3DataModem wrote: »

However I think we need to separate this discussion from a discussion on "human rights" or "necessities". My main point is that while people can do what they like (within reason) the assumption that something is a "right" (sex, hysterectomies, IVF, children, childlessness) is possibly invalid.

If a woman who wants to have children is denied the right to do so, she will probably not die as a result, however her quality of life may suffer.

If a woman who does not want to have children has a child against her will, she will probably not die as a result, however her quality of life may suffer.

From that point of view, having a right to choose parenthood or childlessness is not necessary for life.

But I believe that at this time, in this country, we shouldn't have to compromise our quality of life. We should have the right to do all we can to pursue our dreams and personal ambitions - be this through IVF, or through ensuring childlessness, or whatever is important to the individual.

I'm not making myself very clear there! But going back to the original argument - procreation should not be accepted as the norm. Accommodating it at all costs would, by implication, forbid optional hysterectomies. For the reasons I outlined above, I disagree with this view and I favour the individual's right to make their own decisions in this respect, rather than such an important decision being made by doctors.

3DataModem wrote: »

// PS thanks for the cogent discussion.

You're welcome :pac:


*Yes "provable" is a word, I just checked! :pac:

3DataModem

"But I believe that at this time, in this country, we shouldn't have to compromise our quality of life. We should have the right to do all we can to pursue our dreams and personal ambitions - be this through IVF, or through ensuring childlessness, or whatever is important to the individual."

Agreed.

"I'm not making myself very clear there!"

Pretty clear IMO.

"Procreation should not be accepted as the norm."

I agree more or less. I think the desire to procreate is more important than the desire to bone without risk of procreation, but that's probably moot (and is just an opinion).

"For the reasons I outlined above, I disagree with this view and I favour the individual's right to make their own decisions in this respect, rather than such an important decision being made by doctors."

I agree more or less.

Morgase

I'd love to have my tubes tied but have been refused on the grounds of being too young and might regret it (I was 26 or 27 when I asked my GP). I've always known that I never wanted to procreate and the thoughts of a life form parasitising* off my body makes me feel ill.

I'm going to bring it up with the doctor again next year when I'll be 29 and taking hormones (the pill) for 10 long years!

* madey uppey word

The Sweeper

I wonder about the notion of a 'biological imperative'.

I've never been clucky. Ever. In my entire life. And I'm 33 years old. (And female.)

When I was seven, I had a conversation with another friend of mine who asked me if I knew who I was going to marry. I stared at her in surprise and said "What would I get married for?" "To have children of course!" "...but I don't ever want to have children. Why would I want a husband and children?" "Well, for company!"

I was unconvinced then, and I'm unconvinced now. In the last 12 months or so, I've thought about having children. I've thought about it in that sort of "oh jeez, best get on with it, times a ticking, don't want to be a first time parent too late in life". (This is because my own mother had me at 44, and at this stage of my life I wish she'd had me 10 years younger).

And then I had a revelation.

Ya know, I don't actually have to have kids. Why do I want them anyway? Is it because that's just what you do? Married now, have house, in thirties, time for the patter of tiny feet?

That's when I realised I could quite happily go through the menopause and out the other side with my partner and my pets, and my life, just the way it is.

That's a lifestyle choice.

SeekUp

The Sweeper wrote: »

That's when I realised I could quite happily go through the menopause and out the other side with my partner and my pets, and my life, just the way it is.

That's a lifestyle choice.

So true.

That is absolutely a lifestyle choice, as is parenting.

Nevyn

3DataModem could be more OTT
there are other choices then a hysterectomy.

3DataModem

Thaedydal wrote: »

3DataModem could be more OTT

Eh? Don't understand?

lizzyvera

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I firmly believe it is. I think having children is an indulgence (not that I think it's bad), and I don't agree with the biological imperative arguments, because as individuals it doesn't matter to us whether there are future humans or not.

Some people on the other thread seemed to reject the idea that it was a lifestyle choice. I'd like to hear why you think so.

I'd like this to ignore edge cases like accidental pregnancies. I'd really just like a discussion on whether you feel it is a choice like any other in life, or if it should be accepted as the done thing, the norm, and be accommodated at all costs.

You're not being very clear.

About half of births were planned pregnancies in Ireland, so sometimes it is a choice, and sometimes it is just people going with the flow.

It matters a LOT that there are future generations. Pensions aren't savings accounts! The country relies on people having children to grow up and work when we're older. It doesn't matter if some people choose not to or can't, enough people will.

Malari

Morgase wrote: »

I'd love to have my tubes tied but have been refused on the grounds of being too young and might regret it (I was 26 or 27 when I asked my GP). I've always known that I never wanted to procreate and the thoughts of a life form parasitising* off my body makes me feel ill.

I'm going to bring it up with the doctor again next year when I'll be 29 and taking hormones (the pill) for 10 long years!

* madey uppey word

I feel the same way. The thought of being pregnant is revolting to me. And after 10 years of the pill, in a few years time, I am worried about what I'm going to have to do.

For me it is a lifestyle choice. I've even used the phrase when describing parents. You choose to have a family so you know your life will change in certain ways. I like my life the way it is, so I choose not to start a family.

By the way, parasitising is a real word

Skapoot

I dont understand why a 25 year old woman would be denied a hysterectomy.

Having children is as irreversable as having a hysterectomy but you dont see pregnant women getting asked if theyre sure! You can never get rid of a child once you've had one. If you give it up for adoption it is brought up knowing its adopted, and someday it might want to find you. Also the fact that if you have another child one day, the first child will be playing on your mind.

And if you keep the child theres no getting rid of it.Yes, It will grow up, it will move out. But it will keep on ringing you, calling to see you. You will be wanting to know about its life every day of your life. Its a lifelong package deal.

Whereas with having a hysterectomy, you can still adopt a child, or foster if you do someday get the urge to bring up a future generation.

I think that people should be denied the right of having a baby more often than they are a hysterectomy.:cool:

In fact, those mid-20's women who are giving their children up for adoption should be denied, just in case they want the child someday. Surely they couldnt be making the right decision , sure theres loads of women out there who'd love kids. They might change their minds :pac:

Piste

I think that pregnancy is totally a lifestyle choice. It isn't really an "imperative" liek breathing or eating as we actually need to do these things to stay alive. To say it makes you "fulfilled" doesn't make it less of a lifestyle choice really. People have likened it to homo or heterosexuality but that's not comparing like with like. Sexual orientation is a natural prefence, it's acting on it that's the lifestyle choice. Marrying someone (of either sex) isn't something you HAVE to do, but makes you feel fulfilled, but is still a lifestyle choice. In the same way the desire to procreate is totally natural but it's acting on it that's the lifestyle choice.

This is why I think it's ridiculous that the government funds IVF and gives child benefit (not trying to shít-stir or anything, it genuinely bothers me) for people's lifestyle choices just so they can feel fulfilled.

SerialComplaint

Piste wrote: »

This is why I think it's ridiculous that the government funds IVF and gives child benefit (not trying to shít-stir or anything, it genuinely bothers me) for people's lifestyle choices just so they can feel fulfilled.

Do you think it is ridiculous that the Govt funds cancer treatment for smokers, or cardiac treatments for those who are overweight, or joint treatment for those who have been injured in sports, or pumping of stomachs for those who have got too drunk?

Piste

No I don't think it's ridiculous that the government fund life-saving treatments, why would you think that?

shellyboo

Piste wrote: »

No I don't think it's ridiculous that the government fund life-saving treatments, why would you think that?

I think the point he's trying to make is that those people need those treatments because of their lifestyle choices.

PhysiologyRocks

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Do you think it is ridiculous that the Govt funds cancer treatment for smokers, or cardiac treatments for those who are overweight, or joint treatment for those who have been injured in sports, or pumping of stomachs for those who have got too drunk?

Just to be clear, I'm not against funding IVF if it can be afforded.

If we continue to compare the two on these grounds, then funding IVF is comparable to buying cigarettes, junk food and drink for these people.

Benefits would be on par with treatment for the diseases.

Not saying I feel this way, just following logic.

Nevyn

Piste wrote: »

This is why I think it's ridiculous that the government funds IVF and gives child benefit (not trying to shít-stir or anything, it genuinely bothers me) for people's lifestyle choices just so they can feel fulfilled.

It's not for the very simple reason governments want people to have children or else they have no work force for the future and a smaller tax base from which they have to try and support an ageing population on.

Ireland is on of the exceptions in the EU that we are in a Baby Boom rather then suffering acute population decline.

Red Hand

Thaedydal wrote: »

It's not for the very simple reason governments want people to have children or else they have no work force for the future and a smaller tax base from which they have to try and support an ageing population on.

You could achieve the same result with immigration...an immigrant would take a shorter time than a child to be a tax contributor and would thus support the aging population by being part of the tax paying workforce. After all, child doesn't do much for 18 years except soak up child allowance and produce waste matter.:pac: And there are no shortage of immigrants wanting to relocate to richer countries.

With 6.7 billion people in the world, and more sprogs being produced every minute of the day, you will always have a circular reasoning of "aging population, need more children to take care of the old people". In fact, that is one of the reasons why there are such big families amongst poorer people...you need many kids to take care of the parents when older...and the kids in turn will do the same.

Nevyn

That is not the policies our government has, if you want to change them good luck with that.

SerialComplaint

Piste wrote: »

No I don't think it's ridiculous that the government fund life-saving treatments, why would you think that?

These aren't all about life-saving. So let's say I tear the cruciate ligament in my knee playing football. Am I right in understanding that you are happy that the state will pay for the operation to fix up my knee so that I don't limp, but won't pay for the IVF treatment that I need to reproduce after getting kicked in the 'nads during a match?

Nevyn

Skapoot wrote: »

I dont understand why a 25 year old woman would be denied a hysterectomy.

Because it is a huge alternation to a woman's body, physically, endocrinology wise and hormonally and an unnecessarily operation when a tubal ligation is enough to render a woman sterile, so a woman does not need to have a hysterectomy to ensure she does not have children.

Unfortunately in this country you can not get a tubal ligation or your tubes tied until you are at least 35 ( unless you already have 5 kids ) even privately.

In the UK a woman can decide at 21 if she never wants to have kids and get her tubes tied and the NHS will pay for it.

But if you want to look at terms of what is easiest then make all men donate a sperm sample and have a vasectomy, there you go. Safe procedure, a lot less invasive, more cost effective and that way there is no need for messy hormonal contraception for women and pregnancy becomes a real choice.

Piste

SerialComplaint wrote: »

These aren't all about life-saving. So let's say I tear the cruciate ligament in my knee playing football. Am I right in understanding that you are happy that the state will pay for the operation to fix up my knee so that I don't limp, but won't pay for the IVF treatment that I need to reproduce after getting kicked in the 'nads during a match?

Obviously tearing an injury severely negatively impacts on your health and quality of life, having a child is just something you do to make you happy, not something you *need* to do to stay alive or live a non-disabled life. Basically you're not comapring like with like.

SerialComplaint

Piste wrote: »

Obviously tearing an injury severely negatively impacts on your health and quality of life, having a child is just something you do to make you happy, not something you *need* to do to stay alive or live a non-disabled life. Basically you're not comapring like with like.

You seem to have no understanding of the impact fertility issues on a person's mental health. The definition of 'disability' in law (Disability Act 2005) is "a substantial restriction in the capacity of the person to carry on a profession, business or occupation in the State or to participate in social or cultural life in the State by reason of an enduring physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual impairment". Inability to have children is a huge restriction on participation in social or cultural life. Why would you want to make fertility treatment the preserve of the wealthy?

Piste

Well I disagree that a lack of children is a restriction of participation in social and cultural life. You may feel unfulfilled without a child, but it's not the state's duty to provide you with one anymore so than it is to provide me with whatever I need to feel fulfilled.

SerialComplaint

IVF is not about the state 'providing' a child, and to be honest, language like that is fairly offensive. IVF is a medical treatment, similar to many other medical treatments that the state provides. This is not about having the latest handbag/house/car - this is about the most natural and deepest human urge - to have children. It is ludicrous to suggest that State should fund fixing of ingrown toenails, or should treat conditions brought about by smoking, or obesity, or sports injuries, but still not fund IVF treatments. This makes fertility treatment the preserve of the weathly.

Go talk to somebody who is currently working through fertility issues - there is somebody in your circle of family/friends dealing with this, though they may not be discussing it openly, because of the stigma attached (stigma which is created by some of the attitudes posted here).

metrovelvet

SerialComplaint wrote: »

IVF is not about the state 'providing' a child, and to be honest, language like that is fairly offensive. IVF is a medical treatment, similar to many other medical treatments that the state provides. This is not about having the latest handbag/house/car - this is about the most natural and deepest human urge - to have children. It is ludicrous to suggest that State should fund fixing of ingrown toenails, or should treat conditions brought about by smoking, or obesity, or sports injuries, but still not fund IVF treatments. This makes fertility treatment the preserve of the weathly.

Go talk to somebody who is currently working through fertility issues - there is somebody in your circle of family/friends dealing with this, though they may not be discussing it openly, because of the stigma attached (stigma which is created by some of the attitudes posted here).

No it is not about the state creating a labor force. That is true. And yes infertility is a health issue. But you wont find sympathy here for fertility treatment being "the preserve of the wealthy" since so many people think only the wealthy should have kids in the first place. {how many times do you see posts about people shouldnt have kids who cannot provide - and by provide I read that as send to private school, pay 1000 a month in creche fees, by whatever the latest technology is and status indicators to keep up with the Jones']. While I do agree that in a crisis, and I mean health financial crisis, these things have to be prioritised, in other words, cancer and life threatening, or other conditions which compromise one's life should go before fertility treatment, I do not think the state should be paying for hysterectomies or that even privately these should be available when the tubes can be tied [which you can get done on the medical card btw.]

Piste

SerialComplaint wrote: »

IVF is not about the state 'providing' a child, and to be honest, language like that is fairly offensive. IVF is a medical treatment, similar to many other medical treatments that the state provides. This is not about having the latest handbag/house/car - this is about the most natural and deepest human urge - to have children. It is ludicrous to suggest that State should fund fixing of ingrown toenails, or should treat conditions brought about by smoking, or obesity, or sports injuries, but still not fund IVF treatments. This makes fertility treatment the preserve of the weathly.

Go talk to somebody who is currently working through fertility issues - there is somebody in your circle of family/friends dealing with this, though they may not be discussing it openly, because of the stigma attached (stigma which is created by some of the attitudes posted here).

I've no doubt it's a deep desire, but that's not the state's fault. I see absolutely no reason why the state should provide for something that's not a medical necessity, I see it as a waste of taxpayers' money.

Miss Lockhart

Piste wrote: »

I've no doubt it's a deep desire, but that's not the state's fault. I see absolutely no reason why the state should provide for something that's not a medical necessity, I see it as a waste of taxpayers' money.

So should they not pay for a person to have, say, a fairly serious facial disfigurement corrected either? I mean, very often there is no "medical necessity" to do it...

barbiegirl

I had a feeling this post would go here. I am disgusted and insulted by some of the views expressed here. The need to have a child is inbuilt in a high percentage of the human race. Not all but a high percentage. It is a need, not a want.
I have worked hard for years, paid my taxes, my health insurance and contributed to society and am now starting the investigative process because to date we haven't been able to conceive.
I have respect for those who do not want kids, but you know something guys I demand that same respect from you.
I love my lifestyle, I love my life. However I am HORMONALLY constructed to need to have children.
As to those who say it's a waste of tax payers money. I say it's like saying repairing cartlidge and cruciate ligaments so people can go back to playing sports, is a waste of tax payers money. Treating those with incurable diseases in a waste of money. I hope you never need treatment for something others consider unimportant. Cop on!!

Piste

What makes you think it's a "need" and not a want? When does something become a "need" and not just something you really, really want?


If my boyfriend flies halfway acorss the world should the government buy me a plane ticket because I "need" to be with him. You'll probably say that it's just a strong desire, but how do you differentiate needs and wants?

Jules

Im 28 and at the moment i don't want kids so i have made the choice to take the steps to make sure it doesn't happen. If in the future my feelings change i will choose to take the steps to change my lifestyle and have a baby.

No i know some may think wtf, but basically its that simple.

SeekUp

Regarding IVF, I think it's a little different because it seems to me that the request kind of goes above and beyond the treatments that a physician would perform. I mean, It's tough, right? The state pays for pregnancy-related costs but doesn't pay for people to permanently prevent pregnancy, although the prevention of pregnancy is something that a physician wouldn't ordinarily do unless asked, which is the same situation with IVF (and artificial insemination, for that matter). Would it be comparable to the fact that the state pays for reconstructive surgery in the event of an accident, etc., but doesn't pay for cosmetic surgery unless you can prove that you need it? Rereading over this paragraph, I feel tired and confused.

Don't get me wrong! -- I'm not saying that the want/urge/desire to have children is unimportant in the slightest. I know I'd be devastated if I couldn't have children. I just don't think that I could expect every other person to pay for my very costly requested treatments if I couldn't conceive naturally.

barbiegirl wrote: »

The need to have a child is inbuilt in a high percentage of the human race. Not all but a high percentage. It is a need, not a want.

I get what you're saying . . . although . . . I would still argue that as ingrained in our makeup as procreating is, the decision to have children is still that: a decision. A choice.

oh well , okay

The state doesn't provide for it though , IVF treatment is not available on the public health system in Ireland . Two clinics offer a limited service to medical card holders but this is paid for by the clinics private patients . It is not state funded . The drugs associated with IVF are presently covered on the drug payment scheme but this scheme is open to every person in Ireland and the HSE are currently implementing a restriction on the amount of IVF medication a couple can claim through the scheme anyway .

For me personally I find it incredible that people don't consider IVF to be worthy of taxpayers money . I received a small bruise playing football about 3 years ago . A very minor incident I didn't even think much of it at the time but I've since discovered that bruise left my unable to father children . If I'd lost any other function/ability on that football pitch the state would provide me with medical treatment . Can anybody offer me an injury I could have suffered where the state wouldn't offer me at the very least a modicum of care .

I don't look at it as me wanting the state to provide me with a child but more accurately the state restoring my body to full health , restoring my ability to have children or even assisting me in my lost ability to have children . Like I say if I'd lost any other ability through injury the health service would offer me treatment .

The U.N. and W.H.O. both look on infertility as a medical condition/disease (although their definitions are very woolly) and both consider it deserving of treatment . Every western country I'm aware of offers fertility treatment on their public systems bar Ireland . I can half understand an argument against it based on the economic climate but find the wholesale argument that it's undeserving of any public funds to be at best myopic and at worst ignorant .

SerialComplaint

Jules wrote: »

If in the future my feelings change i will choose to take the steps to change my lifestyle and have a baby
No i know some may think wtf, but basically its that simple.

For the 20% of couples that experience fertility issues, it is definitely NOT that simple. Don't assume that if/when you are ready, the baby will arrive on demand.

Piste wrote: »

What makes you think it's a "need" and not a want? When does something become a "need" and not just something you really, really want?


If my boyfriend flies halfway acorss the world should the government buy me a plane ticket because I "need" to be with him. You'll probably say that it's just a strong desire, but how do you differentiate needs and wants?

These are of course foolish comparisons. IVF treats medical problems, just like many, many other medical problems being addressed in hospitals every day of the week. IVF treatment should not be the preserve of the wealthy.

Rob_l

barbiegirl wrote: »

I had a feeling this post would go here. I am disgusted and insulted by some of the views expressed here. The need to have a child is inbuilt in a high percentage of the human race. Not all but a high percentage. It is a need, not a want.
I have worked hard for years, paid my taxes, my health insurance and contributed to society and am now starting the investigative process because to date we haven't been able to conceive.
I have respect for those who do not want kids, but you know something guys I demand that same respect from you.
I love my lifestyle, I love my life. However I am HORMONALLY constructed to need to have children.
As to those who say it's a waste of tax payers money. I say it's like saying repairing cartlidge and cruciate ligaments so people can go back to playing sports, is a waste of tax payers money. Treating those with incurable diseases in a waste of money. I hope you never need treatment for something others consider unimportant. Cop on!!

Saying over and over again that having a child is a "need" does not make it so, just saying its a need proves nothing. Can you give me something other than anecdotal evidence.

Otherwise to me all those people saying its a "need" and not listening to any other belief are effectively covering their ears and saying "cant hear you"

metrovelvet

Rob_l wrote: »

Saying over and over again that having a child is a "need" does not make it so, just saying its a need proves nothing. Can you give me something other than anecdotal evidence.

Otherwise to me all those people saying its a "need" and not listening to any other belief are effectively covering their ears and saying "cant hear you"

So is a sex change operation for some.

I do sympathise with those who were injured. Somehow it does seem unfair. I dont however, think that women who left it until they were 45 should get a dime towards it.

And aside from that, there are so many other ethical issues around fertility treatment, like embryo storage, that I would support treatment of the injury so that your reproductivity is back intact, but the drugs and storage, I just cant do it.

Rob_l

metrovelvet wrote: »

So is a sex change operation for some.

Quite right you are some people claim that is a need, I dont think the Irish state pays for that though, do we?

oh well , okay

Saying over and over again that having a child is a "need" does not make it so, just saying its a need proves nothing. Can you give me something other than anecdotal evidence.

How about the fact that the U.N. , the W.H.O. and any other health organisation you care to look up consider infertility a medical condition . When the vast majority of medical experts in the Western world consider it as such I'd reckon there's no need for anecdotal evidence .

Otherwise to me all those people saying its a "need" and not listening to any other belief are effectively covering their ears and saying "cant hear you"

Surely a person can expect to be fertile . Every living thing on the planet has the ability to procreate so it's reasonable to expect you can do the same . When you discover you can't it's not because God is punishing you or because of bad karma it's because something has gone wrong in your body . Surely then it's a health related issue and must be considered a medical condition . Could you kindly point to another medical condition that wouldn't receive some morsel of treatment , investigation or care ?

The need comes into it when you realise you can't have children . The need , want , urge isn't the reason you deserve treatment but it's what comes when you don't get it . The reason you deserve treatment is because you're suffering from a medical condition .

Jules

SerialComplaint wrote: »

For the 20% of couples that experience fertility issues, it is definitely NOT that simple. Don't assume that if/when you are ready, the baby will arrive on demand.



These are of course foolish comparisons. IVF treats medical problems, just like many, many other medical problems being addressed in hospitals every day of the week. IVF treatment should not be the preserve of the wealthy.

You want to cool your heels there for a second, i know this is a very emotional debate but no need for jumping at people. And for the majority, it is that simple. Now as the fertility impared people as i like to call MYSELF, when you decided you want to have children you change your whole life styles and start trying and researching different avenues, that is that simple. Im far from stupid to believe that when you want a baby you just automatically get one.

SerialComplaint

Rob_l wrote: »

Quite right you are some people claim that is a need, I dont think the Irish state pays for that though, do we?

Yes, we do. From http://www.flac.ie/news/2007/10/19/briefing-note-on-the-lydia-foy-case-and-transgender-transsexual-cases-generally/

Gender reassignment surgery [...] is not currently available in Ireland but the health boards/Health Service Executive have funded some Irish patients (including Dr. Lydia Foy) to have surgery in Britain.

Rob_l

oh well , okay wrote: »

How about the fact that the U.N. , the W.H.O. and any other health organisation you care to look up consider infertility a medical condition . When the vast majority of medical experts in the Western world consider it as such I'd reckon there's no need for anecdotal evidence ..

Good god of course its a medical condition, something is not working with your body thats a medical condition. There are far too many medical conditions for me to begin naming them all here but just because being infertile\sterile is a medical condition does not make having a child a "need".

We need to differentiate between the two, not all medical conditions are essential procedures and having a mecial condition does not make something else a "need". So Im sorry but that still is anecdotal evidence

oh well , okay wrote: »

Surely a person can expect to be fertile . Every living thing on the planet has the ability to procreate so it's reasonable to expect you can do the same . When you discover you can't it's not because God is punishing you or because of bad karma it's because something has gone wrong in your body . Surely then it's a health related issue and must be considered a medical condition . Could you kindly point to another medical condition that wouldn't receive some morsel of treatment , investigation or care ?
.

Im sorry if the right to have a child is a "need" then can I tell the state I have no current partner however I feel a "need" to have a child, so can the state please provide me with a partner so I can have offspring and fuilfill my "need"?

oh well , okay wrote: »

The need comes into it when you realise you can't have children . The need , want , urge isn't the reason you deserve treatment but it's what comes when you don't get it . The reason you deserve treatment is because you're suffering from a medical condition .

Anyway I am not entering the discussion of wheter treatment should be available that is a whole sub topic and not really what we are discussing here.

oh well , okay

Good god of course its a medical condition, something is not working with your body thats a medical condition. There are far too many medical conditions for me to begin naming them all here but just because being infertile\sterile is a medical condition does not make having a child a "need".
We need to differentiate between the two, not all medical conditions are essential procedures and having a mecial condition does not make something else a "need". So Im sorry but that still is anecdotal evidence

I thought I clearly stated that having a child is NOT a need . You quoted a person suffering infertility and held the opinion she did not need to have a child , the point I maybe laboured to make was that no she does not need to have a child ; but if for some physical reason she can't have children then she should receive some form of medical assisstance .

Their seemed to be an anti IVF sentiment in some posters comments and I was just trying to point out you don't receive IVF treatment because you need to have children but because you suffer from a medical condition .

Back on topic though . Is pregnancy a lifestyle choice ? I'm on the fence on this one . I would consider it as not be as I'd feel ( for me ) it's instinctual to want children but that's for me . If other people don't feel a pull towards having children then who am I to argue so I suppose that means it is a lifestyle choice after all!

ebmma

I think the question is phrased inaccurately. I think it should be "Being a parent - a lifestyle choice?" or something like that.

A girl might be taking all of the precautions and just have bad luck and one day wake up pregnant anyway. It was not her choice.

However, you can't just wake up being a parent. You can choose to continue with the pregnancy and become a parent or you can have an abortion (no gasping please, it is an available choice) or put a baby up for adoption when it's born. There are choices even though some might not be acceptable for some people they are choices nonetheless.

I also don't believe in "need" to have children. if there was really such thing there will be more people going for adoption straight away rather than using it as a very last resort.
The "need to become pregnant" or the "need to get someone pregnant" would be more accurate imo.