INTENSITY²

Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Adam on November 05, 2010, 01:08:48 PM

Title: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Adam on November 05, 2010, 01:08:48 PM
for couples who are unable to conceive naturally?


I think more people should be encouraged to adopt tbh
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Scrapheap on November 05, 2010, 01:18:46 PM
NO
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Adam on November 07, 2010, 07:38:38 PM
Just saw somtrhing someone said on WP...

should sex changes be funded by the state at all?
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 07, 2010, 07:52:15 PM
Just saw somtrhing someone said on WP...

should sex changes be funded by the state at all?

That's a whole other thread!   :orly:
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Adam on November 07, 2010, 07:53:27 PM
fantastic idea!  :zoinks:
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: "couldbecousin" on November 07, 2010, 07:57:52 PM
fantastic idea!  :zoinks:

I knew you would like it!   :2thumbsup:
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Callaway on November 07, 2010, 08:52:48 PM
for couples who are unable to conceive naturally?


I think more people should be encouraged to adopt tbh

I think if you have nationalized health care, then infertility treatments should be covered just like any other medical issues would be.  Isn't that the whole point of having nationalized health care?

I think medical treatments for infertility should also be covered by health insurance companies and so should birth control for women if the health insurance company covers Viagra for men with ED.

If they cover Viagra, then why would ED be a medical issue but infertility not be one?
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Adam on November 07, 2010, 08:54:39 PM
No one NEEDS to conceive a child
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Callaway on November 07, 2010, 09:01:15 PM
No one NEEDS to conceive a child

What would you say if I said that by your logic no one NEEDS to have sex?  If a man is impotent and can't get an erection on his own, he doesn't NEED Viagra any more than an infertile man needs treatment to make his sperm more viable.

If prospective parents want medical treatment for medical factors that prevent their being able to conceive a chld, then I think their medical treatment should be covered to the same extent other medical treatment is covered.
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Adam on November 07, 2010, 09:03:23 PM
We have enough children in the world as it is.

I wasn't talking about viagra or ED. I'm not really bothered if that is prescribed by the NHS or not.

Men should be able to have sex if they want to. No one has a right to a child. Or at least no one SHOULD have a right to a child
Title: Re: Should the state provide funding for IVF treatment?
Post by: Callaway on November 07, 2010, 09:21:58 PM
We have enough children in the world as it is.

I wasn't talking about viagra or ED. I'm not really bothered if that is prescribed by the NHS or not.

It bothers me that some insurance companies in the US cover Viagra for impotent men but don't cover birth control pills or fertility treatments.  I remember paying out of pocket for the birth control pill for my endometriosis and that bugged me because the same insurance company paid for Viagra for men.  I think there was a limit of so many pills per month, but I can't remember the number anymore.

If a FTM had the surgery to make a penis, would it get erections?