Posted on 08/29/2024 2:23:42 PM PDT by mooncoin
In our society, we apparently throw everything away, including pre-birth and post-birth children. Orphaned children abound and so do unused IVF embryos, all human beings but not valued as such.
I have my doubts as to this being the avenue to having an approriately-sized tax base for supporting social security. Is the number of barren couples even a dent in this endeavor? They’re still most likely to only want one or two babies at most. My mind is boggled, so I will stop now. If IVF is free, why not adoptions?
Oh yay. Forced sterilization! Eugenics and all that. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before?
Pro-life non-Catholics can speak for themselves.
When (or before) DJT converts to Catholicism he will regret and repent of this.
As long as the adoptive parents aren’t Christians.
“Oh yay. Forced sterilization! Eugenics and all that. Why hasn’t anyone thought of that before?”
You don’t know what IVF is, do you. And yet, you have access to the internet search features. Ironic, to say the least.
FYI, some women can’t conceive naturally due to problems like fibroids. IVF can solve that problem.
Why do you think he will convert?
Wow.
The cost of IVF is off the charts. This is one proposal where you will be glad that there is ‘ol Mitch McConnell around to block it up in committee.
Many dedicated Christians believe IVF destroys fertilized embryos which equates to abortion.
Is this another instance of Trump moving more to the left on pro abort views?
Oh boy.
Someone didn’t read the post I responded to.
Bless your heart.
Yes.
How is this different than our government forgiving student loan debt?
There are two sides on this issue. There are millions of frozen babies who were created with very little oversite or regulations. Baby creating and surrogacy are big money issues and the goal is to get families as non traditional as possible.
What’s more non-traditional than having a woman in her twenties with two kids of her own grow a baby for two gay guys and be showered with luxury gifts and other luxuries so they can own children? Shoot. The Hollywood types do it all the time and no one bats an eye. This has been going on for decades. And it’s pretty sick. They refuse to refer to the woman carrying the baby as a “mother.” She’s called a gestational carrier or whatever. Yes, the dystopian state of The HandMaid Tale” is actually ran by these brainwashed lefties.
However, not all of those created babies can be implanted. Then you have the couples struggling with infertility who go this route and create more babies than they can care for and there the unused babies stay frozen.
Meanwhile, other families who truly want to adopt a baby can’t because well…that’s really hard to do. So, in that case there are real families who will adopt a frozen baby (sorry…i refuse to use the dehumanizing term “embryo.” If THAT is what President Trump is referring to for helping families who need IVF and it involves adopting these unwanted babies to families who will go through the pregnancy and delivery, and raise the baby, I can get behind that.
“Oh boy.
Someone didn’t read the post I responded to.
Bless your heart.”
No, I didn’t read the thread. You’re right about that.
Sorry if I misconstrued your comment.
Yes. I just heard Trump say that. Remember OCare arbitrarily mandated coverage of certain things. What it did was increase the cost of insurance in certain age groups. So the cost of IVF would be spread among all women in the age group affected, probably ~age 28-42. The cost to each woman or on each family policy would be low.
In 2022, 2.5% of all births in the United States were the result of in vitro fertilization (IVF).
The pregnancy rate in the United States in 2022 was 56.0 per 1,000 women ages 15-44, (Out of those 1000 women 25 would be from IVF)
Someone better at statistics of population could estimate more scientifically but if IVF cost 20k and it was split among 100% of family policies my math suggests it would be ~$5-10/family because all families are not having a birth each year. Rather than 2.5 out of 100 it would be 2.5 IVF treatments out of 10,000 or more family policies.
Is this snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?
It can be done in a way similar to Obamacare: where they will set federal minimum insurance coverage for IVF and the government paying for people whose insurance won’t cover due to religious reasons. |
If conservatives correctly opposed ObamaCare for interfering with private medical coverage, then why would it be OK to provide "free" IVF coverage?
This is yet another issue the States should decide. Not Trump and FedGov.
If anything, it’s recreational abortion. Because it’s not like someone getting accidentally pregnant. They’re going to impregnate the woman with multiple babies, Knowing that they will just keep one.
IVF involves abortion. Or are those life giving abortions?
You guys go ahead and vote. I’ll stay in my fort.
Will she be the egg donor? 😳😵
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.