to think a biological child is not a right

[Aribura]

and the NHS should not fund IVF in favour of vital medications for already existing people e.g. cancer drugs being funded?

I'm feeling masochistic this evening and am looking forward to munching on some biscuits and getting my ass handed to me.

Saragj are you the OP having shame changed?

As an adopted child I don't see why people put themselves through so many many many years trying and suffer the terrible torture month after month when they could potentially adopt.

But then I see adopted children as equal to biological children and therefore am biased and dot really understand all the ins and outs and the 'needing' your own biological child...

That's all I'm putting on this thread x

Sara IVF doesn't have ovarian cancer health risks as such.Chlomid if taken longer than 6 months however does.You're at more risk of having Ovarian cancer if you don't have children than from IVF.

I went to see a consultant to double check after reading rubbish like the above.It's far safer to have IVF than to take Chlomid for far too long which also carries a mc risk.

There have been studies proving no link but since my appointment I've read a recent one which showed an incredibly tiny risk,something like 7 in 1000 opposed to 5 in 1000 and they're still not sure if they were pre-existing fertility problems(ie not a whole lot to worry about).

With IVF you get one trigger shot carefully measured for you,it's not like the fertility drug Chlomid which thousands of women take without a thought before going down the IVF road.

I won't even bother replying to the adopt a disabled child or get a dog comments as they're just hysterical in the amount of ignorance they convey,kind of insulting actually.

Kayano adopted children often bring problems, to pretend that isn't so does nobody any favours. Being infertile doesn't instantly give you the gifts needed to adopt.I suspect the vast majority of infertile couples wouldn't be suitable for adoption.I have several friends with adopted children and the hoops they had to jump through are shocking.

We would have adopted but we would have had limitations.I've worked with children my whole life and now I'm a mum I know that working with kids and being a mum are completely different.I know I just wouldn't have been good enough for many children with problems.

Just couldn't help myself could I!

saragj, do you have children? Have you conceived?

If you have, then I don't rate your opinions about this. Sorry.

well yes - why does this discussion always light upon IVF ?- there are other fertility treatments. some can work out just as expensive. others have risks too.

IVF is invasive and painful - really if you thought you could conceive without it you'd choose another way. It really isn't like the NHS is throwing it at people.

Not really adding to the thread but -

I had always thought I would adopt, my brother was SN plus a lot of other history. I wanted to adopt one or more SN children.
However my adopted DH does not want to adopt a child. He has his reasons which are valid and I respect them.
His experiences have caused him to make that choice.

As another aside my mother is a foster carer and we offer respite care and have been involved in other ways. Adoption is not a free pass the front of the queue for a baby. Even the youngest children can be suffering from severe and long term emotional and physical problems. These can break a family up and further damage the child.

Many biological parents struggle with a SN child. Not all of them are dealing with the particular set of problems an adopted child can bring. When you have a biological child your criteria may have included your plans for caring for a DS or similarly affected child. When you adopt you have to accept a different set of responsibility - not everyone is capable of helping a child through the trauma of those early years, not everyone realises the extent of any issues. But when you say to people 'just adopt' you are saying they are required to take on more than many parents, in fact they have a responsibility to do what a lot of 'bio' parents are not doing and could not do just by virtue of their reproductive organs failing. I'm not saying every child waiting to be adopted is the next child of rage but an adopted child is not the blank slate babies are and they deserve more than to be thought of in the terms many 'just adopt' advocates do.
Infertile people deserve more too.

Did I say there were no issues with adoption? Did I say that really?!

Considering I post on the adoption forum here on occasion with issues I would never say that

So:

1. don't put words in my mouth
2. don't pretend that no one ever had an issue with having biological children

I dont think anyone was responding to your posts Kayano.
I know I wasnt. I didnt even know you had mentioned adoption.

If you're talking to me I was referring to saragj.

So I don't think anyone was putting words on your mouth at all and I never said there were no issues with biological children - I clearly didn't.

So yes, nobody referenced your post apart from Rockpool and she didn't do what you're accusing someone of doing.

Yeah but oranges
That poster said widowed in WW1.
That would mean our mothers would have to have been born in 1918 at the latest.
So even if our mothers had us late in life - say 40, that would make us all in our mid 60s at the youngest.
If our mothers had followed the trend at the time and had us in their mid twenties, that would make us all in our 80s.

I have no problem with older women on MN but they are hardly in the majority are they?

(fervently hopes maths is right)

Kayano - I don't know how old you are but the adoption rules have changed enormously since 20-30 years ago. As have the number of very young babies available for adoption, as I'm sure you're aware.

The adopted children I know are wonderful but they have been pretty damaged by what they went through before they were adopted. Not everyone is capable of parenting children with complex needs but nothing in this conversation is intended as a slight on adopted children from what I can see. And yes, of course, biological children can also be very difficult. But you just hope for the best if you carry a child yourself.

Twat

Right ho. Just seen your post Kayano. I am sorry I missed it, I was a bit agape at the outburst from the other poster.

I can see it must be a bit for you reading some posts, as an adopted child.

Your experiences are always valid and helpful to me as an adoptive parent.

I do think that many, many people have an unrealistic view of modern adoption today and still believe there are orphanages full of newborns waiting to be adopted.
That is what I think other adopters are trying to get across. Adopting a child is just as wonderful and rewarding as having a birth child. I can absolutly testify to that.
But it isnt the same. It cant be.
And it just isnt what some people want or are able to cope with.

OP - re "NHS should not fund IVF in favour of vital medications for already existing people e.g. cancer drugs being funded"

IVF creates a person, while these cancer drugs you are talking about merely prolong life by several months.

I don't think the question here is IVF being a right or several extra months of life being a right. The question is how best to spend limited funds.

MrsDV my grandmothers father died at the beginning of the first world war so my mothers grandmother was widowed (still with me?) in WW1. My mother is a spritely 74 so not outside the realms of possibility that she would be posting on MN.

I am however certain that what she posted would make a great deal more sense than saragj's did so I'm pretty sure it isn't her.

It's not you is it Mum? You haven't been at the sherry again have you?

and what QOD said (I presume about OP rather than generally)

QOD - am assuming you mean the OP rather than me

my grandmother was 4 when WW1 started.

she had half-sisters that had children and died before 1900. my mothers grandmother was in her widows weeds in her picture taken in 1902.

not sure if that's even vaguely relevant, but generations can be quite dislocated when people have kids late/early in life....

Funny that the OP hasn't come back.... (but wouldn't want to say anything that might break talk guidelines!)

What a horrible horrible thread.

< waves to Edless >

My grandfather was 18 when WW1 broke out - luckily he was apprenticed and only joined the war at the end of it in the RAF. I think he and my father probably had their children quite late (and my father was the youngest) I'm 47 - and feeling more ancient by the day My youngest is 10 though which I hope is justification enough for me hanging around !

No it was rock pool I was responding to. I thought she was implying that I thought adoption was a piece of cake with no issues and I never said that at all.

Ah yes, babysitting. Why didn't I think of that sooner?

Haven't read the whole thread, but in answer to the OP, I was under the impression that the NHS did not fund very much fertility treatement now anyway.