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!!!

To admit you have grudges, vendetta's, problems, issues, whatever term you want to use, with groups of people.

Completely normal behaviour.

I do think it shouldn’t be funded on the NHS for over 35s.

Well it’s quicker than saying “the people I’ve had nasty run ins with over being a young mum”.
Again you have run out of points to make and are psychoanalysing me.

Leaving having a baby until you are biologically too old isn't health is it?

Nope. I just know when people aren't going to bother even trying to understand actual, valid points of view and I've been bored and amusing myself 😁

The NHS doesn't fund IVF for those that are biologically too old.

What’s your actual point other than rattling on about how you don’t think teen mums get that much hate just because you a woman who had children well into adulthood havent experienced it? And accusing me of being bitter?

You can go back and read it if you might actually listen to it. I've made it several times and now I realise you don't want to have conversations you just want to have a lot of people agree with you that other women are terrible and wasting government funds.

Also, I've never told you when I had children. You've made assumptions. Congratulations.

And being ‘biologically too old’ isn’t an eligibility criterion for IVF on the NHS.

So you're around 23 then? So if you've been working since your child started school, that would be about 3 years?

Please correct me if this is wrong.

Fuck me! So you're about 25 and have been working roughly 5 years after having had a child on benefits as a teenager and have the audacity to moan about women in their late thirties who have been paying their student loans, plus interest, plus tax for nearly TWO DECADES having IVF on the NHS!?!

They've paid several times more in to the coffers than you and took significantly less out! The brass neck!

But you aren’t biologically too old. Most women can get pregnant under 40 naturally . My mother had me at almost 39 in the 80s. It’s perfectly normal and natural. Sorry to break it to you

I assumed you were also in your late thirties since that's the group you seem to be hanging round with a lot from your comments and you keep bleating on about how you've worked since leaving uni age and paid your dues making it sound like it was ages ago and you've paid into the public pot for years and years totally paying off all the benefit money you needed when younger. You're making our you're not a net taker which you are and will be until you've paid tax for many more years. You have no moral high ground here to crow about how older women shouldn't have any treatment funded by public funds! After they've had their one IVF cycle the NHS provides they will still have taken less than you from the government but will have paid significantly more in just due to being ten years older than you and working all that time.

Because 15 and 36 are the only options not the 21 years between them when our bodies ( and brains ?) are actually best suited to child bearing ?

I'd argue that brains are much more suited at 36 to becoming parents than 15 (or 16-25 TBF).

I'm in my 60s, so people having/have had babies in their 20s doesn't seem at all strange. Being pregnant at 15 is an outlier though and maybe my generation were just too damned scared of what it might mean to take it lightly.

I went to a large all girls high school and literally one girl through my whole 5 years was pregnant at 15 (in 1978) She was lovely but very quiet and seemed a bit neglected looking back. Even then we worked out something might not have been right about all this. Noone was horrible to her and our headmistress picked her up herself so she could sit her O levels.

We had a class photo with her and the baby in the centre.

I'm sorry if people were mean to you @Spiderbug , but taking it out on random people you clearly don't know who've needed IVF isn't OK and you are irrational in your arguments.

By the time I’m their age I’ll have paid almost as much as them maybe more so why should I feel bad especially when other people my age have lived off a student loan from the government and now are unemployed and won’t have to pay their loan back. Why should I be made to feel bad by people who have no problem taking taxpayer money themselves instead of funding their own ivf? Ditto the excessive drinkers who will demand a new liver on the nhs after years of denying their alcohol problem.

That's if you keep a job or find work throughout your working life. Like I said, no reason for people to be nasty to you, but you don't know what's around the corner, illness, redundancy, secondary infertility, bereavement, loads of stuff that can turn your life upside down. Don't assume, because if you do, you're as bad as people who insulted you a few years ago when you had your child.

People were mean to you so you have to be mean to others?

You'll have paid in as much as someone having IVF so you should have had the benefits but they shouldn't because someone was mean to you?

You'll definitely work forever but someone currently unemployed (as you were back then) won't?

I’m not being mean to others I sympathise with graduates who studied for years and now their career has been taken by AI. I also sympathise with women struggling with infertility and going through ivf. As I’ve said many times this is only about the hypocrites who are ok taking things from tax payers but complain when teen mums do it.

Not sure what part of “person who makes the claim provides the evidence” you are struggling with.

So where is your evidence? (Or lack of it)

From what you've said about earning the same as the graduates you work with who are on minimum wage, I'm guessing you are too, and therefore likely topped up with UC?

So you have been working for less years than the state funded you fully.

You are therefore still a "net taker" and still likely receiving, so not likely to have "paid back" what you were given. Still a net taker.

Correct?

But the woman who has paid in until she's in her 30s is NOW utilising some state funding, but that likely won't cost as much as she's paid in.

Also correct?

Explain the hypocrisy?

@Spiderbug - where is the evidence, other than anecdotal, for a substantial overlap between people who complain about single mums getting benefits and people getting multiple cycles of IVF on the NHS?

These are good points, I wonder OP have you read this? You seem very blinkered to what anyone is saying. I believe someone said something in real life to upset you about teen mums recently? Which resulted in you creating this thread but you are generalizing and judging all older mums with careers and being unfair. Reflect on these points that LOTS off pp have raised please.

Agreed but ypur body os better at it at 15. I thinl we can agree that in the middle is better.