AIBU to think it's unfair same sex couples can get IVF on the NHS but not single women?

[CateB78]

https://news.sky.com/story/fertility-inequality-how-single-women-are-facing-ivf-discrimination-and-financial-strain-12996293

Well yes that's rather the point isnt it, that it's not the same process/outlook/senario as having a biological child.

I was making that point to the poster who only thinks infertile people should have to tell her why they didn't consider adoption when she clearly has no expectation on anyone else to tell her this.

It isn’t in one go. It cost us £60k over 10 years of ttc with ivf specifically (probably 80k if you consider the stuff we tried before). We were higher earners and so didn’t feel the strain as much - we just budgeted for it instead of upsizing our house. I think most parents spend at least 6-8k a year on their child without realising it.

@FrustatedAgain Your stance appears to me to be:

If I am female and have a male partner who can't get me pregnant - NHS should fund IVF.
If I am female and have a female partner who can't get me pregnant - NHS should not fund IVF.

I understand that people have varying opinions on whether the NHS should or shouldn't fund IVF and there are arguments on both sides which are interesting and valid.

But I can't understand how your position above is not an inherently homophobic stance.

If your husband is infertile then yes that's a medical issue isn't it? I said if the male has a medical issue that creates a need for IVF in my opinion it should be given.
In my opinion if there is no medical issue then IVF is not needed.

But by giving me IVF they are not treating my husband. I am fertile. It's not a medical intervention either way.

Whether my partner has a medical issue or whether they are female, it makes no difference. The end result is I can't get pregnant.

You are out of date.

You do not need to adopt sibling groups. Some people do, many don’t. SS like siblings to stay together but know it’s often impossible.

There were about 60 under twos up for adoption in the North East last year.

More children are removed from their parents earlier than was the case a decade ago, mainly because children were being removed too late to be adopted and get a fresh start. Some children are removed at birth or soon after (usually because one or more siblings have already been removed).

Adopted children are always (rightly) classes as vulnerable, but children removed young would not normally be traumatised.

No one should getting IVF on the NHS. No one has a right to have a child.

But a single woman, regardless if they're having unprotected sex could very well be infertile! Not sure what you're saying here.

My friend very early on (late teens) knew that she would most probably be infertile.

Iui results are misleading. That isn’t the live birth rate it’s the pregnancy rate and you are much, much more likely to miscarry an iui embryo. I know that from bitter experience.

Talk me through this “finding a man” proposal of yours.

Most single woman wanting children by IVF are likely to be heterosexual women in their 30s, who are aware that time is running out, and have been unsuccessful in finding a relationship. We see it all the time on here - women in stable relationships with men who they love, being tricked into waiting to have kids, then being abandoned by their partner and finding they’re suddenly in their late 30s. Are you saying these women should simply go out and shag the first man they see? Regardless of whether they fancy them. Or should they just get a boyfriend and use him for sperm, even if he doesn’t want kids?

A female partner unable to get her female partner pregnant is not a medical issue or a fertility issue. It’s not homophobic to acknowledge that.

But most single women wanting a baby don’t NEED IVF. They can go to a clinic and be artificially inseminated by donor.

No, but I can't see how it's not homophobic to say that a fertile female in a heterosexual couple should be treated, whereas a fertile female in a homosexual couple shouldn't be.

It's completely irrelevant that the reason for my husband's infertility is medical.

If he was female, I also wouldn't be able to get pregnant. It would be the same situation.

Why should I get IVF in this situation because I'm in a heterosexual relationship, but not if I'm in a same sex relationship?

That’s bonkers. Average wage in UK is around 35k. Mr and Mrs average ought to be the ones having kids. It’s dangerous to perpetuate the myth that it’s expensive to have kids. Marriage and kids at a younger age ought to be incentivised. Pushing female careers and “boss babes” has not ended well for women’s fertility rates.

We can't all afford thousands to have a Baby

I think this is a bit oversimplified. There are many reasons women choose to remain single. Why should they be forced into having unprotected sex with a man? There may be past trauma or it just might not have happened for them.

I think ivf on the NHS should only be available to those with a medical
problem which prevents them from conceiving.

I think the expectation for gay / lesbian couples to be able to have biological children is a clear demonstration of how we’re forcing heteronormative values on people who aren’t heterosexual. But if they want to have kids and the NHS is offering it why not?

Whatever the policy is, it should be the same countrywide, not 3 courses in one area, none in another, one in another.

Surely donor insemination is more straightforward for female same sex couples?

I am saying that single women in their 30s who feel time is running out may need to simply accept that they made all sorts of choices to find themselves in this situation.

They aren’t owed a baby. Or free NHS IVF.

Not being in a sexual relationship with a man will necessarily represent a significant barrier to conceiving a child. That’s just how it is.

It’s not heartlessness. It’s basic biology.

Then don’t have one. Having a child isn’t a right. I’d stop all NHS funded IVF when there are people dying of treatable diseases because waiting lists are so long. Anyone wanting IVF should pay for it.

It's completely irrelevant that the reason for my husband's infertility is medical
ICSI is almost always the choice of treatment in make infertility, rather than IVF. This involves picking the healthiest sperm most likely to fertilise the egg. It is an intervention specific to male infertility.

The fact that it requires the female to have her eggs removed and the embryo put back is circumstantial in this instance.

I was under the impression the movement was for same sex couples and single women. There's been a lot of effort in trying to get this to happen.

Currently, same sex female/afab couples need to go through 6 to 12 rounds of IUI before treatment is available on the NHS. That equates to 1-2 years of trying with a rough cost of £2k per go (incl. sperm). If all fail, then same sex couples, and single women for that matter are having to pay upwards of £24k before they are currently entitled to NHS help.

There are changes being made which should open up fertility treatment to single women and same sex couples but it might take some time.

No one is forcing them to have sex.

If they don’t want to have sex - for whatever reason - then they aren’t going to get pregnant without medical intervention.

the state doesn’t have to provide that medical intervention for them.