Missing Personal data..

koshkha wrote:

WormThatTurned wrote:

Everyone has a right to have a child.

Having a child is a PRIVILEGE not a RIGHT.

The 'I have a right' thinking is what leads us as a country to spend a fortune on IVF for couples when (in my opinion) the money should go for treating those who are sick.

If someone wants kids THAT much they should stop taking holidays, sell their home and move somewhere smaller, do without a car and make other cut-backs BEFORE we as a nation cough up the money for IVF.

OK, you can all be nasty to me now but I don't think it's an appropriate use of public finances when sick people can't get the drugs they need because they are too expensive. My priorities are to the living and not to the as-yet-unborn.

I agree on the whole and for me adoption is the route people should go down if they cannot have children.

I am willing to bet that it is easier to get IVF on the NHS than it is to adopt a child.....

drewboy wrote:

I am willing to bet that it is easier to get IVF on the NHS than it is to adopt a child.....

Oh, of that I have no doubt. The criteria for IVF will be far less stringent than the complex application/interrogation of an adoption application.

Weve gone from missing data to tax credits and now to IVF

Back to tax credits - the threshold for receiving them is a joint income of £58,000. Which I agree is too high.

However they do help an enormous amount of parents. Since they were introduced child poverty has been slashed which surely is a good thing.

Back to the 'I have a right' argument...I was referring to mothers who are capable of bearing children.

The average salary in this country is £17000 after tax. If you put a stipulation on having a child linked to income, youd rule out a hell of a lot of people and with a falling birth rate I can see why the government is trying to help families with tax credits (and embracing mass immigration).

I am guessing there are a lot of people on this thread who clearly know less about adoption than they do about IVF and how easy it apparently is to get.


However the thread was on missing personal data...not tax credits - or did I miss something.

Well, I made an assumption on that, to which if I am wrong, I apologise.

With regards to the thread 'wandering', I suppose it has.

I actually agree with what you said Drew...yes IVF is a lot easier than adoption

But I think it is grossly over simplistic to say either

1. people who cannot have kids should sell their house and forego their holidays to pay for IVF or other ideas of a similar nature...OR

2. people who cannot have kids should adopt other people's so the NHS saves money.

Adopting kids probably means taking on at least 2 or 3 other children, has massive implications for the kids, the parents and the rest of the family that don't go away when the kids reach 18. Kids are probably sexually abused, phyiscally abused and many have significant disability to end up in care in the first place. You have to consider problems from the child's real family, as you do maintain contact in some form.

You don't end up with a white healthy baby and look forward to years of parental bliss, those kids don't end up on the adoption register.

Getting IVF is apparently easy by comparison but in fact it can be a postcode lottery and certainly is not easy, as well as bloody intrusive.

Going through the adoption procedure is a whole different thing. (Almost) anyone can have kids, taking on children who have had that much trauma requires a different individual and suggesting we put people through the adoption process just because they want a family so bad (and they would be desperate so would go through with it) would be a crime to those children IMHO.

And how the two can even be linked is a stretch of the imagination that is completely beyond my ability. The ONLY link I can see is that if either process is successful someone ends up with a child, if they are lucky.

And back to the first argument, if people cannot have kids, it can be down to some medical illness, so apart from the moral argument about whether IVF is interfering in "nature" too much (which could be applied to any form of medicine that extends life!) I don't think encouraging people to find £20-£30K because they want a child is within most desperate couple's ability when you take into consideration the average families salary and the fact it is hard enough buying a house in any event without trying to find a cheaper one so treatment can be afforded. However, a lot have to and DO make the sacrifices suggested because they do not have a choice.

It's not just a case of too bad, you were unlucky - Pull yourself together. It affects people's whole life.

Rant Over.