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

[Spiderbug]

There seems to be a substantial group of people who are ok with calling teen mums a waste of their tax money but then leave child bearing too late and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for their multiple ivf cycles which costs the tax payer up to 100 million a year.

Hypocrites!!!

but the nhs is not in financial
difficulty because of the 0.1% of its budget it spends on ivf? So why not let people have it?

I will say it again, it spends more on postage than it does on ivf.
If you’re so bothered about nhs spending get annoyed about something that would actually make a difference

Yes....but in the context of these particular posts, if you'd paid attention, it's in response to people saying they shouldn't have waited.

Why not? If there's a good chance that someone they meet at 25 is going to cause them pain and they were sure they weren't the right person for the job, why not wait for the right person?

Why are we advocating jumping into relationships that aren't right, just to have a baby? The numbers of people splitting would be MUCH higher if that was the only option for parenthood - find the father by 25 or be damned.

'IVF/fertility treated parents also have weird kids - lots of issues, probably to do with messing with nature.'

That's quite a horrible thing to say. I hope you don't use any modern medicine as that would be 'messing with nature' too.

Apologies, we are in agreement

No . The point is some people don’t meet anyone at all until later . Or they might meet someone who has no interest in having kids for a long time . Etc etc etc

Who is advocating for that? Can you actually say where somebody has encouraged this?

What about that comment is bitter? Someone said a lifetime of benefits and I say I’ve worked since my dc started school. How is that bitter?
If you don’t like what I’m saying and it’s touched a nerve you can just say that

Yes, I found that part confusing as well. Unfortunately by the time you reach your late thirties, the good men are mostly taken, and if you want children you generally have to settle.

I get what the poster above is saying though. You WANT a baby and in order to have a biological child you NEED IVF.

Eeeeewwww I could never imagine being THIS unhappy in myself that I would talk so disgustingly about other women going through IVF.

gross gross gross

Every single person who has said "if you have waited til you were in your mid/late 30s til you found your person, you shouldn't have help to have a baby".

Which means you can only start a family when you are younger, in their eyes. So just grab the nearest male and sod the long term consequences for your life and that of your child/ren.

And again...are you talking about specific members of this demographic who have actually been sneering and unpleasant to you or about teenage mothers in your hearing and then needed (NHS) IVF later on purely and only because they have left trying to conceive until late?

I reckon this will be a really, really small group.

You started on at university students taking tax payers money too.

We get it, someone was rude about you when you were first a mum. Now you think that because they thought you were "wasting" tax payers money, no one else can have it without judgement either.

Please seek help. The comments of one/a few several years ago do not reflect the views of the majority.

30 isn't old to be having a baby OP. Sure, in the past women generally had their first younger than this but they didn't have much option about this and they were certainly still having them past 30.

Most late 30 somethings can have a baby naturally though?

Can they? There's not a proportion who needs help?

I said ‘most’

And those that can't, they don't deserve help because they didn't latch onto any random man in their 20s or waited til they could afford a child?

And if you wanted a baby and needed ivf to do it because of a health condition, you wouldn’t want the healthcare system you pay your taxes into to support you with this?

No problem, yes we are

Look, someone, everyone, will have said something negative about every class of people at some part of their life, you are making mountains out of molehills and comparing apples to oranges, the two are not comparable. You just sound like you are having a bad day.

Go home, have tea with your kid and have a laugh. And then spare a thought for an older woman who is desperate for that experience and her only chance is IVF. Would you really deny them that chance if they qualify? Head wobble time.

Yes, like when people WANT to recover from cancer and they NEED chemo/radiation/surgery.

In this hypothetical scenario, were the older women paying into the system right up until they sought fertility treatment (potentially for two decades) and do the teen mums then go on to pay into the system as well, or are we working with the negative stereotype that the teen mums do not?

In the UK, a household on maximum benefits could receive £25,000 from the state in one year, which is considerably more than one round of IVF.
A higher rate tax payer right at the bottom of the threshold would be paying around £11,000 of income tax per year, which would cover a round of IVF.

It's possible both could be net contributors depending on how long they work for and what they earn.

Not when it is on the bones of its arse, no. They are there to deal with the condition, not to fund expensive fertility treatment because someone wants a baby.

That isn’t remotely the same thing. That is a necessary part of the treatment, without it the prognosis is bad and the person could die.

Wanting a child is in no way comparable