Sassydot Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:09 am
They should make adoption more accessible, rather than concentrating so much on IVF, IMO.
I know of a couple who have had 2 lots of IVF that I know of, one was funded the other(s) would not have been. They also did foster care. Because of the fostercare they weren't seen as eligible to be adoptive parents. But because actually GETTING an adopted child seemed so unlikely anyway, they didn't want to stop fostering, either.
I think the demand on IVF and such, would be considerably less, if infertile couples who want children were more realistically able to adopt.
That said, I understand why they do fund IVF.
The baby boomers are all approaching retirement now, and it's going to put a HUGE strain on the country's finances, unless we have a nice influx of taxpayers. I mean, $10K to fund a round of IVF is just around 1 year's income tax.
Then after that lot, we'll be approaching retirement of people who are in their 40s ish now, who have never and will never own their own home. Paying rent is all well and good while they're working, but I hate to think what sort of state all these people are going to be in, and what the govt. is going to have to do to assist them, once they have to pay rent and live off superannuation
Also, at least (usually) the couple who get IVF REALLY REALLY want that child. How much does it cost the country for medical treatment and to foster out an abused or neglected naturally conceived child?
Last edited by Sassydot on Mon Jun 14, 2010 8:14 am; edited 1 time in total