Recently I looked into adoption in my state and it is sad to see how many disabled kids are listed. If anyone can offer explanation I would be interested to read it.

But I have always found that a difficult problem: it actually features quite heavily among the reasons I have chosen not to have children. I might be prepared to give 18 years of my life to caring intensively for a child, but I am not prepared to spend the whole rest of my life doing so, and you can’t guarantee that you won’t have a child that for whatever reason is dependent on you for its daily care forever (e.g. due to disability). For me, the fact that I can’t imagine accepting that responsibility means that I am not ready to have children at all. But I am sure there are other people out there who would be equally unwilling to take on life-long care of a dependent person, yet close their eyes, hope for the best and have children anyway.

As for not being able to cope with a disabled child being a reason pursue IVF – since when does having a biological child (via any means) guarantee a healthy child?

True, many couples wait until they are older to start their families, and then due to age related issues have trouble. However, sperm counts for men are half what they were 50 years ago. Many women face issues with PCOS, and irregular periods (therefore fewer cycles of ovulation).

Why is infertility so common? Our environment is polluted with many chemicals that mimick human sex hormones and disrupt them -phalates, parbens, flame retardants, plastic compounds, and pharmaceutical hormones in our water and food. This is impacting our fertility! In Canada (where I live, and I imagine the US is similar) chemical compounds are innocent until proven guilty, meaning they can be used with few restrictions until they are proven many times over to cause harm. There is an Aboriginal community in Sarnia, Ontario where the ratio of girls to boys is highly skewed, and it’s thought the numerous plastic and chemical companies nearby are to blame, yet the government has done nothing. Governments must regulate chemicals in use and consider the damaging health effects they have, and we must pressure them to do so.

Fertility issues are expensive, but without addressing the cause, the costs are only going to go up.

To read about the Sarnia community, check out http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pollution-where-have-all-the-baby-boys-gone-472477.html

This is not about genetic disorders that people are unaware that they carry or chance. If the data states that many women are having to use these treatments because they put off having kids until nature says it is too late, then it can possibly be seen as selfish (if one is aware of the risks). Nature is nature and just because we can do it scientifically we need to be concience of the risks. And I am for disability rights and a big fan of the late Harriet McBryde Johnson. I also understand the issues of women and the workforce, but maybe someone should come up with a way for women to move the onset of their period to the age of 20 instead of 13 and menopause to age 70.

If we want less multiples being born due to fertility treatments, than insurance covering single embryo transfer IVF is the way to go. Considering just one set of preemie multiples can generate millions in medical bills, covering 8k for an IVF doesn’t seem so bad. Unfortunately, my $700 a month insurance plan doesn’t cover jack shit related to infertility.

But maybe we should only let people with perfect genes reproduce, right?

Part of the reality is women are waiting later to get pregnant and science has made it possible to get pregnant. Science may be redefining biology, but this is going to be an ongoing issue until women start having kids younger. I know many women who had their 3 or 5th kid their late forties, but the fact is many women are starting to try for their first after age 35.

As or eugenics, I don’t support it, but what bothers me is the lack of explanation for what seems like a dominance of certain childhood diseases and disabilities. Can some be related to both men and women waiting until much later in life to reproduce or are they a result of scientific intervention. There are many other possibilities such as environment, chemicals, etc., but it seems everyone is marveling at medical/scientific advancement, but is anyone besides religious leaders questioning possible negative outcomes?

Sure, there are older, disabled or abused children available under a foster-to-adopt scheme, but first of all you have to have the resources and skills to parent children with these special needs, and secondly, you have to be prepared that, since they start off as only foster children, you might have to give them back to a relative if their circumstances change.