To think some older women having tax payers funded ivf are hypocrites?

Most areas don’t fund IVF over 40 and very few areas fund more than one cycle at any age so I just can’t see how this can be true.

We are and it’s fine that that’s your opinion. But the rules are rules and infertile couples can get Ivf and that’s that. You can scream “pay for your ivf” all you want but the taxpayers money is gonna be spent on it regardless of your moaning

Yes, it’s a consequence of an illness, as I said.

Doctors would inform you that your fertility was damaged or destroyed by an illness or treatment, so you would know. In the pp’s case it was very obvious.

But you are clear at least. Hopefully you apply the same strictness to yourself, don’t have statins or blood pressure drugs and just eat better and exercise.

We’re allowed differing opinions.

@cocoonme also you don’t get to order people what they pay for . It’s available for free for suitable women and that’s that. Soz love

Not just teen mums specifically but yes I don't agree with anyone, even IVF mums having children when they can't afford to provide for them without the state. No issue with people having IVF if they can provide for that child though.

I have to say I find your lack of empathy absolutely shocking and disgusting, either you are a troll or someone who is really really bitter.

So you know one person like this and you're generalising it to the whole world - plus this happened when you were 16 so years and years ago?

I think you need to get over it now OP, it just smacks of very low esteem.

Do you know how hard it is to adopt?

do know the mental struggle of being told you can’t have children naturally just because both parents have a minor fertility issue - if one was ok we would have conceived naturally. And just to clear I could have had a major operation to fix my tiled womb which would have made it easier for us to conceive but the medial advice was IVF

Absolutely different because a joint can go septic. Pay for your IVF.

What’s an older mum, in your opinion?

And that’s relevant because…

This is such a simplistic view . It’s not like gender affirming care that is ludicrous. Lots of the things taxes are spent on aren’t “necessary “

I hope you never need a knee or hip replacement. Because it's not medically necessary. The treatment is...wheelchair.

They're not. But they are more likely to be raised by parents who want them and want to make them into useful members of society than people who have children for the benefits (at any age, to be clear) and aren't interested in the actual parenting process.

The medical treatment is. Adopt.

Why are they guaranteed to contribute to society?

The NHS spends far more on treating obesity and all the diseases related to that (cancer for example).

You have specifically selected IVF even though alot of people having IVF will have been trying for years and years before it becomes an option or something they would put themselves through.

Smoking, alcohol, obesity, lack of exercise cause far bigger problems in the NHS, so if we’re going to single out groups seeking treatment, surely people who abuse their body should be on the list first?

Or those who never turn up for an appointment and waste it? A charge could be introduced tomorrow for that but no government is strong enough to do it. I work in healthcare and everyone I work with supports a penalty charge for not turning up. I’d happily have that money go back into the system to pay for a couple desperately wanting a child.

Why have you specifically gone for IVF when there are far bigger issues with the NHS?

Building a family and creating people who contribute to society is not akin to cosmetic procedures....

It’s an incredibly expensive, medically unnecessary procedure. It’s like plastic surgery, or gender affirming care.

I didn't say solve. I said help. It's making the issue worse to say "no, you people willing to procreate are not allowed because you need help".

And helping people build a family is absolutely not the same as gender affirming care but this is not the place to get into that debate.

IVF won’t solve those issues.

To me it’s akin to gender affirming care. Nice for the recipient but not a necessity. When we don’t have a social care system that’s strained, because there’s so many children in it, and when the NHS is functioning well, I think there’s a place for that discussion. Until then, I think it’s not something we should be funding

I couldn’t get pregnant because my husband had a medical condition (not self inflicted) and IVF was the treatment

We need children though. There's been several years recently where the birth rates are so low schools are halving their intakes. So the next generations are incredibly small, comparatively. Meaning in 14-15 years time, people going into training for the jobs being vacated by the older generations will be greatly reduced.

Surely ensuring society can continue to function and we have enough people to become doctors and nurses and farmers and all the important roles we need in the future is useful and important? And IVF can help that, but if it's priced out of the average persons reach, they won't do it.

That’s different - they’re self inflicted illnesses but still illnesses. IVF is purely to give someone a child. That’s not the same.