Contentiousness!

Yes, that's right, feeling contentious this morning. Damn you, Globe & Mail!

I'm examining a debate that looks at providing public healthcare funds for in-vitro fertilization techniques, for women who are unable to concieve due to advanced age, infertility issues, etc.

I'm against it. That seems to be a popular and simultaneously unpopular statement. I am against it not for women-bashing reasons, although alarmingly that is a sentiment echoed in the comments section. I am against it because I do not feel that having a child is a 'right' and that having 'your own' child is a selfish, sad commentary on the state of today. What happened to adoption, if you feel the burning need to have a family? That is the most unselfish act, rather than spending thousands and thousands and facing extreme sadness and disappointment (the failure rate of in-vitro is high, there's no sugarcoating that). People are hard-pressed for 'their' and 'mine' and 'my' instead of sharing a life with someone who might appreciate it.

I do not like children and will not have my own, but I understand the desire and 'ticking time-bomb' of biological clocks. (well, vaguely). But is it really necessary to feed into the narcissistic drive of 'my own'? To reproduce yourself is not the most unselfish act you could perpetuate, it is one of the most selfish, but that's ok, because you are raising a member of society. I'm fine with productive members of society, but at what lengths do we go to ensure they are your own? Too many great lengths.

Off Susan's soap-box, with one more comment: The answer to reproductive and fertility issues isn't to go back to middle-ages type living or caveman viewpoints. It is to improve the status of women in today's society even further, so that they may *gasp* raise children and have a financially productive career and fulfilling life. Oh, commence pearl-clutching!