Should IVF be available to lesbians?

I had IVF as a single woman and I paid for it at a private clinic. I don’t think the NHS should have funded it, because I didn’t have any major fertility issues. If I’d turned out to have blocked fallopian tubes for example, then yes, I think the NHS should have funded it. I think the same should apply to lesbian couples.

Saying that, I strongly believe the government should clamp down on the excessive fees charged by the UK fertility industry. The fees sometimes have no bearing on the actual cost of providing the treatment - the industry knows it has would-be-parents over a barrel and charges as much as it thinks the market can bear.

Not for free no unless they are infertile.

How do you think surrogate mothers get pregnant? Thankfully we're not in Gilead yet.

In some cases there are two medical procedures as two women are used to achieve the baby.

Surrogacy is different to IVF in that there isn't a medical procedure, I don't agree with surrogacy but clearly people do make arrangements and these are not paid for by the state therefore it is difficult/almost impossible to stop and therefore the current situation where payment is not allowed seems to me to be a compromise. IVF is a medical procedure and providing that for something that is impossible naturally is wrong.

Don’t resolve

I doubt it. Read your own posts back and imagine how they may be understood by someone who can’t see into your mind and know what you meant to say, where you done resolve your arguments properly.

@EndlessTea keep thinking, you'll get there.

To get that though the lesbian couple my do 12 DIY inseminations without success.

If not how is it fair that a heterosexual couple have to try for a year before they even get testing.

I don’t believe anyone has the ‘right’ to assisted conception.

However, everyone should be treated equality for their medical conditions and their sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Do you think gay men, or anybody, should have access to women for the purpose of surrogacy?

No. I don't think surrogacy should be legal.
I don't think lesbians with no fertility issues should jump straight to IVF because there are other, cheaper, safer routes that they should explore first. In the same way that hetrosexual couples can't decide to have a baby and jump straight to IVF.

I mean I totally disagree that a lesbian can supply sperm. What a bizarre claim. You can’t mean it literally, so I have to work out what I imagine you mean, which is not satisfactory is it?

It’s not faux confusion. I seriously do not know what you mean. It’s like you miss out half of a sentence and assume people know what you are on about.

OK, so I am interested then on your thoughts regarding surrogacy? Is this problematic to you as a woman?

Do you think gay men, or anybody, should have access to women for the purpose of surrogacy?

Right! thanks for the explanation - I think I can see what you are saying, although I do not agree with any of it.

I am curious as to your thoughts on surrogacy. Presumably you are female? How does that sit with you?

@EndlessTea enough with the faux confusion. You disagree, as is obvious by your comments throughout. That's fine.

You believe that lesbians should have exactly the same rights as hetero couples, so fertility treatment/ivf etc etc but you do not advocate for those same rights for gay men?

And if I've got that right can you explain how you cannot see the flawed hypocrisy of your argument for equality.

I know you weren't asking me, but I don't really see this as hypocritical because of the inherent differences in male and female involvement in having a baby.

An otherwise fertile lesbian couple would need sperm, and the NHS would fund a straight couple who needed sperm (obviously with the caveat of the various conditions around fertility treatment on the NHS).
A gay male couple would need a surrogate. The NHS doesn't fund surrogacy for anyone, gay or straight. A woman (whether she's single, in a lesbian couple, or in a straight couple) who requires a surrogate would not have this funded by the NHS.

So you can treat a gay couple in exactly the same way you would treat a straight couple - neither get surrogacy funded for them. And you can treat a lesbian in exactly the same way as a straight couple - both get access to sperm donors (and fertility treatment for the woman if necessary).

Obviously some people would still argue against the lesbian couple having help, because it's not a medical issue.

Sorry I am still confused. I think it is where you said "if" lesbian woman can supply the sperm that made my head spin.

What I think you are saying, is that if the lesbian couple already have an arrangement with a man and are trying through artificial insemination to get pregnant unsuccessfully, then they should have the same access to female infertility intervention as heterosexual women.

Could you clarify, if , on the other hand, the man they have the arrangement with is the one with fertility problems, do you think fertility services should provide them with donor sperm, (as a heterosexual couple may be offered) or that they should be sent away to make an arrangement with a different man?

I have read this over and over trying hard to understand your viewpoint. Correct me if I am wrong. You believe that lesbians should have exactly the same rights as hetero couples, so fertility treatment/ivf etc etc but you do not advocate for those same rights for gay men?

And if I've got that right can you explain how you cannot see the flawed hypocrisy of your argument for equality.

No. The issue for me is the woman who is asking for intervention to become pregnant. It doesn't matter to me if the other party is a partner or a donor. Both women are asking for treatment, possibly different treatment, but with the same aim. A baby. If there is a cost I believe both women, or neither, should be funded.

@Eyerollcentral my point is though, the big "if" the heterosexual woman can be treated successfully and "if" lesbian woman can supply the sperm, the outcome would be the same. Intervention, which costs money, "might" result in a baby for both. Or none. It doesn't bother me either way if any of it is funded but it needed to be funded for both women if any.

It's not a case of denying someone a right. It is impossible for a same sex couple to produce a pregnancy on their own, the couple however hard they try are not able to achieve this physically therefore medical intervention is not assisting with a medical issue. This is not true for a heterosexual couple who should if everything is working be able to achieve a pregnancy. In my view IVF is to help with a medical issue not to achieve something that is impossible.

I'm undertaking IUI with donor sperm as a single woman.
Weirdly I feel like if anything, the procedure should be free. But not the sperm. But I can't work out exactly why I think this.
I think there is definitely a difference between actually having a fertility issue - ie. something's not working properly, and simply lacking sperm.
The lesbians I know who used a donor did it DIY at home but they had got married to ensure they were both legal parents and the donor was not. If I used a known donor I'd still have to pay for sperm storage and the IUI procedure to avoid the donor being a legal parent. It would be quite useful if there was a simple legal way to use a known donor DIY style but avoid the legal parenthood aspect. Would have to be set up in advance of conception or could lead to dodgy claims in court. Hmm...