Joined: Jan 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 536 Location: Coventry, UK Karma: 12
IVF « Thread Started on Aug 27, 2005, 5:14pm »
I know this is probably a pretty harsh view, but I don't think I agree with IVF at all. I especially don't think it should be available on the NHS.
I think if a woman can't have a baby, then she should accept that and adopt or something. There are loads of kids who need parents and I think people who can't have their own children should consider helping these kids. It's sad if a couple can't have children, but everything happens for a reason and if they're not meant to have children of their own, I don't think they should go through fertility treatment.
I also think that having kids is the most natural thing in the world, while IVF is rather unnatural. So it's screwing things up to go the unnatural way.
And also, it's on the NHS I believe, and I don't agree with that because I think the money on IVF would be better spent on saving lives; working on the cure for cancer, cutting down waiting lists, imroving conditions, that sort of thing. I think it's kind of selfish to spend that money on trying for a baby. Having a baby is not a life or death situation, that's what hospitals should be concentrating on.
People say women shouldn't have abortions because there are lots of couples dying for a baby. I say, don't have a baby because there are a lot of babies dying for parents.
What does everyone else think of IVF, and whether it should be available on the NHS?
Joined: May 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 12 Location: London Karma: 0
Re: IVF « Reply #1 on Aug 28, 2005, 5:02pm »
I, actually agree with IVF. Having a baby of your own is a very special thing and sometimes people take that for granted. Parents want to pass down their genes to a new generation and if the only way that they can do that is IVF then so be it.. It may be unnatural in your eyes but I think that it is good and helps couples conceive their own babies in a new way.
To be honest I dont really know much about the NHS so I can't really comment on them offering the service of IVF although it does seem like a good idea becasue then couples don't have to spent a lot in order to have a baby if they have difficulties concieving.
Yes, there are a lot of babies in the world that don't have a proper home, but what can you do? theres orphanges and foster care homes which they go to.. they are less fortunate but thats how the world works.
Joined: Jan 2005 Gender: Female Posts: 536 Location: Coventry, UK Karma: 12
Re: IVF « Reply #2 on Aug 28, 2005, 7:12pm »
But I don't think children should have be in orphanages. They should have families, everyone should. And even though I understand that couples want a baby of their own, I think it's a bit selfish of them to try so hard when there are so many children already, who could be theirs.
I can see where you're coming from, Miss Clairo, and I think I agree.
Everything happens for a reason, so if something doesn't turn out the way you planned it to, just go with the flow, things change, you don't get what you want all the time - and sometimes that means your own baby.
But then again, if everything happens for a reason (and this is a strange view), then there's a reason that scientists came up with IVF? It's a weird way to look at it, but IVF is something and it happed for reason.
Could be a bad reason though so hey.
I think I'd be devastated to find I can't have my own child naturally, and IVF might be a good option but I'd want to adopt anyway.... I think I will even if I can have my own children!
It makes sense in my mind to adopt the babies who don't have parents when you don't have a baby. It's like you're made for each other, so who needs IVF anyway!
So long as theirs condoms splitting all over the world, there's gonna be babies to adopt Eh, that's sad actually but hey.