Friday, September 08, 2006

Apparently thirtysomething women are being advised to freeze their eggs, if they think they're going to want children in the future. Given that this only has - I think - a 10% chance of success, I'm uncomfortable about encouraging more women to do it, at a greater cost. Whilst I wouldn't say I was anti-IVF, a lot of the arguments in favour of it make me feel uncomfortable.

Being infertile for whatever reason, does not mean that you cannot have a family. I'd rather see all this money and time being invested in boosting the profile of adoption and fostering, rather than having expensive and potentially unhelpful treatments provided on an already underfunded and overworked NHS.

I also have a problemn with the media portrayal of infertility as an exclusively female problem - if science has come up with a 'cure' for male infertility, then there hasn't been anywhere near the same attention focussed on it. I'm discounting things like viagra, which I have issues with as well, and sensible research into the causes, obviously. It's the alledged fact that women who cannot have children biologically are somehow ill that bothers me - I don't regard infertility as a disease, although I accept that it is frequently caused by it.

It feels like the NHS is pandering to a specific feminist elite - I'm all for choosing when, how and if a woman gives birth, but if we're concerned with improving women's reproductive choices then I think we have bigger priorities.

If you want children and can't have them biologically then adopt, foster, or get the hell over it. Motherhood is not the be all and end all, and if it is for you then give a home and a family to an already existing child who sorely needs one.

free stats