Should couples who are unable to conceive naturally receive state funding to have IVF treatment?

Topic:
Health Debates

17 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
29% of users

  • If the government is funding other medical treatments, then the state should also fund IVF.

    Infertility is a medical condition and if the state will be funding all other types of health care or treatments, then it is only fair that the state should fund IVF as well. The only circumstance I would feel differently about is if the woman or man caused the infertility themselves I feel they need to pay for it. This would be based on drug abuse in men or several abortions by the woman. Things like this.

    Yes eyeslikethat

  • I think it would be fair to provide financial assistance to a couple trying to conceive.

    There are many children who have parents that are unable to care for them and become a financial burden to tax payers. If a couple is financially and emotionally able to raise and care for a child, they should receive the same amount of aid that would normally go to a foster child. If we are going to provide financial assistance to bad parents, shouldn't it be available for good parents as well?

    Yes I3nKai

  • Anonymous

    Yes they should be given some funding to help couples conceive. IVF is very expensive and many families can't afford it and their Health Ins. doesn’t cover it. Yes there are a lot of children that needs to be adopted but everyone wants to have their own biological child that looks like them. But if you don’t have any problems trying to conceive, then it will be hard to understand where a couple that can’t have any on their own is coming from. People get help from the state that has 5 kids and don’t take care of them, yet they can’t help a family who really wants a child and know that they are going to care for their child and not live off the state and tax payer money. But like I said, you just don’t understand.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Infertility is a huge problem in the United States. If the government had a fund, many deserving parents would have the chance to be parents.

    There are plenty of couples that cannot conceive, and would be excellent parents. but IVF treatment is very expensive. Although I do agree that there should be certain qualifications.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yes they should be given support to have IVF treatment.

    Since IVF treatment is not in the reach of every couple who are unable to conceive naturally, so there must a funding for those deserving couples to get funding to have themselves treated through this technology. But there should be a criterion to determine the deserving couples.

    Yes IinAsh
Voice Your Opinion
No
71% of users

  • No, because a couple that can't have children should foot the bill for the expenses involved, not society.

    That is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. If so, then a couple should be receiving state funding to have abortions. This is a horrible idea. If you can't have kids, then you can't have kids, and it should be up to you to afford the expenses, if needed. Oh my goodness, we already have enough children in the world.

    No PointlessElbert47

  • absolutely not

    there are enough kids here in need of homes

    No Anonymous

  • A child is a gift from God

    It is evil to create a child through artifical means. The child is innocent but the parents will have to answer to God.

    No Anonymous

  • IVF treatments are too pricey.

    There are many critical health conditions that are in need of funding. Currently, IVF treatments are costly and are not guaranteed success. In addition, there are many orphans looking to be adopted worldwide. Therefore, infertile couples should always consider adoption rather than cause a burden to the state by going through state-paid IVF.

    No FeIBuddy

  • Having kids is not a concern of the government

    The want to have children while nice is not the responsibilty of the government like providing good health care for sick people is

    No Anonymous

  • IVF Treatment < Adoption

    This is an issue directed more towards common sense than anything else. If the couple is unable to conceive naturally, then they should consider adopting a child. There a hundreds among thousands of children looking for a family to raise them in the US as well as other countries across the world. Although it is highly recommended, raising a child is no longer a necessity in today's society.

    No Anonymous

  • Couples who are unable to conceive naturally cannot use the State's money.

    This issue is same of that about abortion in various decisions most courts in the United states have concluded that the state will not fund abortions. This can be similarily applied for IVF treatments. It is wrong to use citizens' tax money to pay for IVF treatments.

    No Anonymous

  • I disagree that couples who are unable to conceive naturally should receive state funding to have IVF treatment.

    There could be many reasons why a couple is not able to conceive naturally including their physical and mental well-being, habits and interests. If a couple is not able to conceive due to their habits (excessive smoking, drinking or drugs) it is their individual responsibility to help themselves. Adoption may be considered in many cases. There are more genuine and deserving cases that need state funding.

    No A Richardson

  • Couples who are unable to conceive naturally should not receive state funding to have IVF treatment because having a child is not a necessity.

    Couples who are unable to conceive naturally should not receive state funding to have IVF treatment because having a child is not a necessity like food and clothing and shelter. The states are already way over budget and many states are nearly broke now. This should be the lowest of priority. In fact, it's ridiculous. Another mouth to feed? I don't think so!

    No JeffP4ri5

  • There are too many children in the world who need loving homes to give funding to couples who can't conceive their own child.

    People who are unable to conceive should try adoption. If they are given funding for any reason, it should be to fund an adoption. There is no way to justify giving money to create more children when there isn't enough money to educate the children we already have. There are many many way I can think of that would be a better use of government funds.

    No TownNoam

  • I disagree. These couples should rather consider adoption.

    I think couples that can not conceive naturally should consider options such as adoption in stead of spending tax payers money on conceiving. There are thousands of orphans that need good homes. If these parents are serious about having children then it would not matter to them that they are not biologically related.

    No tahleaunreal

  • I believe that adoption is a very good alternative to spending so much money on a procedure that may not succeed.

    Since IVF is such an expensive procedure which may or may not succeed, I believe that considering adoption is a much better alternative. There are so many needy children who are in need of a good home that it makes sense to me for people who desperately want children to consider this alternative. In these hard times with medical costs already out of site for many, I believe that this money cold be better spent elsewhere.

    No R0d0Ferdy
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should couples who are unable to conceive naturally receive state funding to have IVF treatment?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource