I am pro-choice, but the operative word here is "choice."

I don't think it is a good idea to have a child at twenty, but the point is that people should not be denied medical care or opportunities to have a healthy child just because they are poor. From an economic standpoint, the cost of IVF and preimplementation testing is far, far less than the medical care for a child with polycystic kidney disease, and obviously it is far better from a human suffering standpoint to have a healthy child rather than one with such a devastating disease.

I believe that allowing the government to intervene in reproductive decisions is wrong and very dangerous. It certainly has had disastrous effects in the past.

I also think it is wrong that only the wealthy can afford to adopt a healthy infant from a foreign country, or that only the wealthy can afford to hire a surrogate mother.

The fact that the 2nd one died makes it even worse;
the parents already had a critically ill baby;
they *knew* the risks before they conceived the 2nd one.

I strongly disagree that subsidized reproduction is a right, & I think handing a baby to any couple who demands one is insane.

& then there's the problem of reconciling no govt involvement in reproductive matters with subsidizing parenthood for anyone who demands it.

If the govt isn't involved, who's going to pay the costs?

so if people have a sick child, they shouldn't have another child? are you serious? we live in a free society. I know peopple who have one severely disabled child and the other ones are all healthy.

and why isn't it a good idea to have children at age 20? i was 21 and my X was 20 when we had DD. what's wrong with that? i am actually glad i had a child that young. and, oh boy, we were poor and struggled so bad, we had DD during toughest times in our home country when everything was falling apart. 3-hour-long lines to buy milk if there was milk to buy...etc. no hot water, boiling water to wash diapers. boy, was that "fun"...and she grew up just fine. i certainly don't regret.

and I agree that it is wrong that only wealthy can adopt. i always thought that if i would end up single for much longer, i would like to do single parent adoption. hhmm. i'll never be able to afford it.

iammommy I have hard time believing that you never had any government/or anyone else's assistance raising three youing children by yourself at such young age. medical insurance for them at least? and if not governmental assistance, then somebody else's assistance? and didn't you struggle? and didn't you hear from people: "she already has one, why does she have another one?" and then "she already has two, why does she have the third one? she should be taking care of the ones she already has"

i did wish i had another child right after the first one. hard times ended and now nobody struggles but it sure seemed then that hard times would never end. and it seemed that only crazy people would have more children under the circumstances. well it does not seem that crazy to me anymore.

Please re-read;
nobody said that no one with a disabled child shouldn have more children.

What *I* said is that this couple shouldn't have had a 2nd child since they already had a *very* sick baby, a baby who has no kidneys & who is on a waiting list for a kidney transplant, that they knew that the chances were 1 in 4 that subsequent children would have the same horrible disease *& suffer badly & die from it*, & that they don't take care of the baby they already have.

Wealthy people aren't the only ones who can adopt;
they are the only ones who can spend the money to choose healthy infants from private agencies or foreign countries or pay a surrogate to carry & bear a child with their own DNA.

As long as they can pay for it, it's their own personal business.

What I said about wealthy/poor people adopting is that I don't think that the government should subsidize adoption to put babies into the hands of anybody who demands one regardless of that person's ability to support a child.

If you want to adopt& you can't pay what it costs to go through private or foreign adoption,check with your county or state agencies, there are tons of kids in need of homes.

She could always become a SP and not have to give birth to anymore children.

Does it matter if IMA was on assistance or not ??? She didn't need IVF or genetic counseling to be paid for by the govt. so she could keep having babies.

finedreams,

yes, I heard from people that I shouldn't have more kids when I struggled with the one I had. It was wrong for me to have more kids when I could barely afford the ones I had. My kids suffered for my immature selfish mistakes. Does that make it okay for others to do it now because I did it then? I'm not 20, I'm now 39 and I matured to realize I was wrong.

Fortunately, my kids were born healthy and I had to demand a tubal ligation after my third. The doctor was reluctant to do it because I was 21. I told the doctor that I am having my third kid and I don't need a fourth. Yes, I could have relied on birth control but it failed with the third one and I knew I didn't need more kids. I love kids and would love to have had five or six. I'd love to have one now with my husband but my kids are grown and I feel too old to start over (I have been raising kids since I was 17 and I kinda look forward to traveling when his daughter is grown) But, I would certainly not think it would be right for the government to help me conceive another child when I was 20 if I wasn't self supporting and able to take care of the ones I already had. I think working families that could afford to support their child without government assistance should have access to affordable fertility specialists but I don't think it should be paid for by taxpayers necessarily.

Perhaps it's a good thing it costs a lot for fertility and genetic counseling. If you can afford it, then you can afford to support a child. It doesn't necessarily make you a better parent than a poorer counterpart, but raising kids cost money and if you can't afford to make a baby, how can you afford to feed it? Once again, life isn't fair and it is advantageous to be wealthier if you want children but can't have them without help. That's why I suggested that maybe Jenny or her boyfriend should be going to college or focused on bettering their financial situation instead of worrying about making another child. If they have a child now, while their current child is on a waiting list for transplant, that would only add stress to their life. Even if it's a healthy child, besides the financial stress, they would have to be worrying about that child while their older child is being treated or having surgeries. It wouldn't be fair to either child.

well, now that I AM the evil stepmonster, as many of you have pointed out, maybe I need to point out that NEITHER parent has finished high school and NEITHER has intentions of even trying for a "good enough diploma". why should they? they are living the high life off of all of us (us meaning taxpayers). My husband has left (making his two younger sons leave also (curtis 19 and daniel 16). My husband is staying with an old friend but there is no room for the other boys so they are forced to live with their older brother and the "turd". Curtis was at my house crying last night wanting to come home but he is afraid to betray his father. apparently the "turd" is a horrible person to live with and she is ready to kick him out. Sure, curtis and i bumped heads when he was still living here (i assume this happens with all teens and parents step or not). but he at the very least he was respectful. His father has told him to have no contact with me and im sure would be furious that he visited me. Am i wrong to want him to feel safe, to want him home, and to want him leading a "normal" productive life instead of learning how to "milk" the system.

at 19, Curtis should be able to make his own decision and I know he's torn between his dad being upset but his dad has thrown him to the wolves and if he hates it there, it's really up to him to be where he is comfortable. If that's with you, then too bad for his dad. If his dad wants to control where his adult son lives, then he should have gotten a place that was big enough to take them with him. I feel more sorry for Daniel because he is a minor and if he hates it there, he's stuck.

It should be up to you, if not as his step mom (with no legal ties), you can let Curtis live with you because he is an adult and can choose for himself whether he wants to live with you or his brother. and no, you are not wrong to want him home, his dad should be ashamed of himself, making his kids fend for themselves because he wants to leave. It would be different if the sons wanted to go but at their ages, they should have a choice. Especially when dad moves in with a friend and has no room for them.

I agree curtis is 19 and is of legal age to tell his father where to stick it!
The 'turd' has made her damage on him and he wants out. So, give him the choice to move back in. I know his father may feel betrayed. But his father was an idiot to leave you in the first place for ' a turd' of person! Who has no respect for life itself and seems to want to watch her children suffer! I do not blame you for not wanting her under your home. I gave you advice to keep your distance for the sake of your husband. BUt reading now that he has left andis living with a friend, then good ridance. Your better off without him.
your in the position to help curtis. Do it. His father left you , curtis is 19 and if he wants to move in with you i say all thumbs up!!! Give him the oppurtinity of a good education and stable home.

"Does that make it okay for others to do it now because I did it then? "

Well it certainly is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

"It was wrong for me to have more kids when I could barely afford the ones I had. My kids suffered for my immature selfish mistakes. Does that make it okay for others to do it now because I did it then? I'm not 20, I'm now 39 and I matured to realize I was wrong."

That sounds very thoughtful & humble & honest;
it doesn't sound like anybody's calling anybody anything.

the other side - i guarantee you are a lonely miserable person who has nothing better to do with your life than sit on here and criticize others. Probably to try to make you feel better about your life. misery loves company, and im sure if you sit and think about it, more people than you realize avoid you at all costs. people are here for help not to listen to smart ass remarks from jaded angry people like you!

I don't seem to be the one engaged in scatological name-calling.

TOS,
Poor people don't have accesss to IVF. Are you crazy? It costs $12,000.00 for even the first try with no guarantee. Do you think a person who can't afford rent is able to spend that much on IVF? It's pay up front, not pay as you go. You've got to be kidding me. That's like saying I have the right to have access to a million dollars if I really want it.
Also almost anyone can adopt. Their are babies & children in the foster care program that need adopted. In WA, you can adopt for about $1,500.00, you then get to claim up to $10,000 on your taxes, & they get free college tuition & medical until 18-21. So adoption is affordable. They work with you. Maybe not from a foreign country but my goodness the U.S. has thousands of children that need families. You can even view the little ones online.

I know the poor don't have access to IVF. That is the whole point. THEY SHOULD HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO MEDICAL CARE, INCLUDING IVF. It is not a luxury.

Unfortunately, almost all of children waiting for adoption in the United States are older or have special needs. Many of them have been abused or neglected and have severe psychological problems. Yes, they need to be adopted and deserve families, but are you saying that the rich have the right to adopt healthy infants or give birth to them through IVF, but the poor do not?

Equal access to medical care, including IVF. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

That is like saying women over a certain age should be entitled to get a free face lift, tummy tuck, breast implants, etc.

I don't have a problem with providing access to medical care for the needy as long as it provides for the maintenance of good health and the treatment of illness and injury.

Anything beyond that IS a luxury.

crazy

So hubby doesn't want any kids ... wife does ... hubby won't help pay for it .... wife goes and gets IVF treatment paid for by _______. Now she's pregnant not his sperm. A year later a child(ren) is born to the "happy couple" ... 2 years later they divorce!! because he didn't want kids...does hubby have to pay CS for a child(ren) he didn't want in the first place?

"amen sistah" ... :)
thats for you sylvia been a long time since I have seen it.

You're quite welcome, pseudo!

I too wish we had universal health care, but if IVF is "health care" then the govt should subsidize the little blue pills for men.

Don't poor men deserve...

pseudo-mom,

That is not a valid comparison. We are talking about using IVF when it is medically necessary - when it will allow parents to have children when they could not otherwise, or when, as in this case, it allows parents to have healthy children. Are you saying that abortion in the case of a fetus with a fatal disease such as this, which would be paid for by most insurances, is somehow preferable to pre-implantation testing? Are you saying that it is better for the government to pay for medical care for a child with a severe birth defect than it would be for government to pay for pre-implementation testing? What kind of cost/benefit analysis would come up with a conclusion like that?

There is nothing about IVF that is "medically necessary". The term "medical necessity" only applies to illness and injury in insurance/medicare/medicaid language.

Its not "medically necessary" in this case ... twice they were pregnant and both children have/had genetic defects... maybe they should not procreate apparently they are not "perfect" for each other.

Didn't Betrayed say both parents carried the gene so obviously they had some testing done.... no more children together.

I have no idea what I am talking about but I will say ...
I don't think many doctors would even suggest doing IVF on a 20 year old single woman without a job or way to pay the bills even if it were covered by insurance?

" * Posted by theotherside (My Page) on
Thu, Apr 24, 08 at 22:46

"Does that make it okay for others to do it now because I did it then? "

Well it certainly is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. "

No, it's called learning from your mistakes.

When I went through IVF, you & your DH had to see the endocrinologist's counselor first, had to answer many social questions, & show you had the funds...you have to pay up front. The meds to even get started were like $3,000 & that is to a pharmacy & not included in the price. There are many injections, hormonal fluctuations, & it needs to be a priority due to timing. I don't think a dr. would suggest to any woman in her sitution IVF. I don't think you should do IVF unless you have enough money. It could take up to 5 tries. It could total in the hundreds of thousands if you wanted to take it far enough with genetic testing, continued attempts, & different methods. A poor single woman shouldn't have this option if she can't afford it. I think elderly people should be taken care of better before putting money into IVF programs. That's crazy.

I thought TOS's "pot calling the kettle black" comment was directed at the OP, who chimed back in calling her SS's baby-momma "a turd" --

-- not at Ima who has slept in the bed she made and made a good go of it.

And TOS - If that's the way you meant it, then I agree totally. Baby-Momma's certainly no prize, but I haven't seen any evidence of OP's redeeming qualities either.

sweeby,

Although I agree completely with you about the OP, I actually was replying to ima's criticism of "Jenny." In an earlier post she said,

"Perhaps they should be working on their education so they can get jobs with benefits and will someday be in a position to have all the children they want."

I agree that it is much better to get an education first, and then have children, but ima had 3 children at that age. Whenever anyone on this board was critical of that, she defended herself by saying she was young. Well, so is this girl. If it is excusable for ima to have been young and stupid, why is it not equally excusable for "Jenny?"

I don't consider that having children at young age is a mistake. My child is not a mistake. What lessons was I supposed to learn from having a child in young age? Hmmm It is a mistake at age 13 because you cannot raise them yet, it trully is too young. But how is 20 too young???!!!! My mother was 20 so am I my parents' mistake?

What the... excuse my language?

A couple who can't afford a cup of coffee has no business adding to their family, IVF & other fertility treatments *are* luxuries, & using public funds for heroic measures to get poor women pregnant is just insane.

I'm with Misti (it was Misti, wasn't it?), who said that if there were that much extra cash lying around for public health, it should be used for people who can't get care for the health- & life-threatening problems they face today.
I'd much rather see health funds spent on peanut butter & honey for poor children, for parent education on nutrition & health, for the elderly who can't pay for medicine & electricity in the same month, heck, for eyeglasses...than for IVF for someone who's neurotic about having her "own" children even though she can't afford them!

The fact that people have children at a young age, or have children when they can't support them, & yet are grateful to have had the children *does not mean* that it's a good idea to have children when you're too young or too poor to take care of them.

I know that people get misty-eyed & romantic about merging their DNA with that of the beloved, but really, if you just can't make it work, you just can't make it work.

Blow your nose & go on with your life.

There's nothing magical about brewing up your own little zygote, & being unable to do so *isn't a tragedy*;
if a couple has the kind of genetic problems this young couple has, they should be grateful for the opportunity to adopt.

oh, wait...
no job, no school, no money....
this couple can't get a foot in an adoption agency's door.

& I don't know how anyone can hold the concept that reproduction is a right:
Even happiness isnt' a right-
the Constitution guarantees us the right to *pursue* happiness;
maybe we have the right to pursue pregnancy if that makes us happy.

I think not being able to have children IS a tragedy, and I think there are a lot of people who would agree. Having a baby is miraculous.

then you should be happy, right?

'If it is excusable for ima to have been young and stupid, why is it not equally excusable for "Jenny?"'

It is not excusable for what I did. I have said that I was wrong. I made mistakes. I was selfish. I was immature. I wasn't thinking about the long term consequences of my actions or how it would affect my kids later.

But I did not once ever say 'gee, I think I want to have another baby. I'm going to try for another.'. I didn't plan or purposefully get pregnant, I was careless and didn't prevent it. (the second one) which was irresponsible but I did try to prevent the third. and when I found out I was pregnant with my third, I was terrified and had to convince my doctor to do a tubal ligation.

You may have taken what I said out of context and read it to be that I was trying to justify my poor choices. The facts are what they are. It wasn't just that I was young, I had other issues which I have since dealt with as an adult. Being molested, taking care of my alcoholic mother, being assaulted, dealing with my parents divorce, having NO female role model in my life, having way too much freedom and a whole lot of resentment too. Those aren't excuses. That is what my life WAS. I've grown up and learned. I take full responsibility for what I've done.

So, what's your point?

I am very happy that I have six healthy children.

What the insurance company considers medically necessary may not be the same as what a reasonable person thinks is medically necessary. One insurance company in my state does not think annual eye exams for children are medically necessary, even when the child flunks the annual vision screening at school. I heard that another insurance company does not consider seeing eye dogs as medically necessary.

I don't think medicine to keep people alive who are suffering from severe dementia and don't want to be alive any longer is medically necessary, but most insurance companies will pay for that.

If you don't think medical care for the depressed terminally ill is necessary, how on earth do you rationalize impregnating neurotic women who just have to have a baby whether they can afford it or not?

crazy

"how on earth do you rationalize impregnating neurotic women who just have to have a baby whether they can afford it or not?"

Sylvia, look who you are asking??? She's gotta be irrational or neurotic herself. She's comparing eye exams to seeing eye dogs to medication for severe dementia.

Insurance companies may not be able to agree with what's medically necessary, but I think we can all agree that theotherside makes no sense. She's got six healthy children but whines that she lives at poverty level, so why wouldn't she stand up for a woman that wants more kids but can't afford them.

I may have had more kids than I could afford back when I was young and didn't always have enough money, but I didn't whine about it, I chose to give birth and keep them. I worked and went back to school and lived within my means. A lot of the time, that meant doing without things for myself so my kids had what they needed. I sure as heck didn't buy myself a playstation while I let someone else pay for anything, even medical care.

Having a baby is NOT miraculous. Being a good parent is.

Ima, I think you've done extremely well for yourself & your children. You were a very strong woman back then & now.
Tos, A person with severe dementia doesn't have the capacity to make life or death decisions. I don't agree with keeping people in a vegetative state alive myself but keeping these people out of pain while they are living is of the utmost importance. More important than spending the money on IVF.
I totally agree with insurance companies paying for some fertility programs, but not the state.
Yes Jen....You are totally correct. My OB told me of a 17 year old who had twins already & just got pregnant again. She's not miraculous. If she turns out to be a good parent, that'll be miraculous.

Right, having a baby is biological, no more or less miraculous than any other female creature having a baby. no more or less miraculous than the analytical brain, or opposeable thumbs, or walking upright.

maybe less miraculous, since only our nearest relatives in the animal kingdom walk upright, though I think we're the only ones with analytical brains & opposeable thumbs, while lots of critters give birth.

Having babies is the normal way of life.

Until the early 60's, *not* having a baby was more miraculous!

I think women sometimes get addicted to motherhood, especially the baby years;
they get so exhilerated (hormones?) with nursing & cooing & baby babble that they become addicted to that exhileration & lose all perspective.

I have a Realtor friend who let her business go to rack & ruin when her daughter & son & their respective spouses started their families.

She had been an indulgent, over-involved mother, then she had briefly run a daycare center, & then hot dog! here was a whole new generation for her to diaper & feed & coo at.

Only when the grandbabies got big enough to argue with her did she manage to turn her thoughts to anything besides babies.

& I guess that's normal, too, in a completely natural world.

but in a completely natural world, the women would be submissive to all the males in their group,
they'd be pregnant from the time they were capable of conceiving,
if the lead male lost a fight to another male, the new male would kill all the babies that had been fathered by his predecessor...

& no one would experience menopause, 'cause we'd have been dead years before!

mistihayes,

If you don't consider the birth of a child miraculous, why did you bother going to all the trouble and expense of IVF? I can certainly understand why you would have wanted to have your sons, and I would fully support having insurance pay for the IVF, even if that insurance had been Medicaid. Don't you consider your sons miraculous?

Of course I think dying people should get pain medication - what I said was that people with dementia who want to die should not get medication to prolong their lives. I think it is ridiculous to assume that just because they are suffering from dementia they don't "really" want to die. I can tell you right now that I personally do not want to be alive if I am ever in a permanent state where I can not recognize my children, get myself to the bathroom, or feed myself.

sylviatexas,

Actually, many animals have opposable thumbs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thumb

Just because it is biological doesn't make it any less miraculous.

As I was driving my 12 year old today, she said, "Spring is beautiful, isn't it?" I think it is wonderful that children can realize how miraculous and wonderful spring (a biological process) is, and remind us adults of that when we may be too busy or concerned with the day to day to remember that.

If I am addicted to motherhood, then I want to stay that way...

The process of life forming IS miraculous. Maybe the process of going from a single cell growing into an actual baby is miraculous, but once that baby is born, it's can be a tragedy for that very child. When it's a child that is forming life, it isn't so miraculous and wonderful.

The youngest girl that I personally knew to have a baby was 9. NOT miraculous. It was incestuous and may have destroyed that child's (the mother) life and the baby's life to maybe someday find out how he/she was conceived. What is so wonderful about that?

I also had a client that was 17. She was pregnant with her fourth or fifth child. Only one lived with her. All the others were with different relatives, being aided by welfare. She was living with her one child in a motel room and was becoming homeless because they were condemning the motel. Chances are, she will never have all her kids together in a 'family'. She has burdened many of her relatives that I'm sure love those children, but probably didn't anticipate raising someone else's children. It's not 'miraculous'.

Life forming= miraculous
having babies= not miraculous
being a good parent= wonderful
being a bad parent= tragedy

I must be one of these neurotic women who just have to have a baby...Dear Sylvia this is the very first time I disagree with you.

Actually here ( in Italy but it is the same in most European countries) we have subsidised IVF for all the people suffering of infertility, rich or poor. in fact we have subsidised healthcare for everything (except cosmetic surgery for purely esthetic reasons, like breast augmentation - of course breast reconstruction after mastectomy is offered to all breast cancer patients, i know because I was one)

Infertility is a medical problem, not a destiny.
And quality of health care should not depend on your income or mental condition (yes, severely depressed terminally ill paients here receive palliative care, to help them to live their last days with dignity and free of pain)

About adoption, being infertile does not automatically gives you the special skills necessary to be a good adoptive parent.For the sake of the adopted children, adoption must be a conscious choice not just a convenient remedy for infertility, A couple can be infertile and not wishing to adopt just like another couple can be fertile but perfect for adoption, by the way nobody asks a fertile couple why instead of making babies, they do not adopt even if they look just right for it...

infertility is just a sickness, a mechanical or hormonal or genetic problem, not the sign of a special calling

In our case, not only I am a cancer survivor but i have an hereditary thrombophilia so by the time it was medically advisable for me to get pregnant (five years cancer-free), and we discovered (after one year of trying) that my husband had developed secundary infertility and we needed IVF, i could not undergo hormonal stimulation and o we had to recur to egg donation. Now it sounds so simple but it wasn't.
The third time (i was ready to give up, i was 43) it worked and now we have six months old twins, a boy and a girl,(and this is the reason why I have not been posting for some months)

Going back to the OP, i completely agree with organic maria, it is unconscionable that after having a baby with such a terrible disease, they choose to make another, without IVF and preimplantation diagnosis.

IVF and preimplantation diagnosis in a young and fertile couple, (the younger and more fertile you are, the less hormonal stimulation you need and more embryos to test you obtain) would have cost about 7.000 dollars at the St.Luke Hospital in Minneapolis, one of the best facilities in the USA (I have a American friend that went there).

So even having to pay for it, and supposing that a very young unemployed couple with already very sick baby, needs another immediately (and I agree that it is NOT, they don't need another baby or WII or Playstation, they need to learn to parent the baby that is already there and given their situation it will be truly miracolous if they succeed) it is the price of a small car to avoid countless sufferances for your child.

They are truly horrible people, playing Russian roulette with the health of their children.The OP would be wise to detach completely from them and let her husband confort as he can the days of his desperately sick grandchild.

By the way here in Europe IVF with preimplantation genetic testing is also routinely offered to everybody suffering from genetic diseases, to avoid invasive prenatal testing and eventually pregnancy termination or the birth of a severely sick or handicapped child.

Italy individual income tax rates 2008

Tax (%) Tax Base (EUR)
23% 0 - 15,000
27% 15,001-28,000
38% 28,001-55,00
41% 55,001-75,000
43% 75,001 and over

The Italian government should provide everything with tax rates this high.

tos, she just said spring was beautiful.
which it is.

I don't know why people feel like "miraculous" is an appropriate adjective for everything from shooting stars to having babies (if that's miraculous, does that mean that periods are miraculous? how about cramps?), & hitting every green light in town.

It cheapens the glorious in normal life, as though any given thing has to be "miraculous" in order to be worthy of appreciation, no matter how beautiful, ecstatic, or life-affirming it is as a *normal* part of life or reality.

Lots of normal stuff is beautiful, ecstatic, & life-affirming, & lots of beautiful, ecstatic, life-affirming stuff is normal.

maria, thanks for the compliment!
I do realize & understand that the drive to have offspring is a powerful thing;
when someone becomes obsessed with it to the exclusion of everything else & every other part of life is valued only in comparison to having children, especially if they restrict their "goal" to their own biological children, & especially if there's a baby fixation, & especially if they are obsessed with getting pregnant & having babies when they cannot afford a child...
then I do think that's neurotic & they need to find some other way to be satisfied with life & to move on.

tos-
thanks for the link, everybody please ignore my opposeable thumb comment.

However, the working poor in the United States whose income falls in the phase-out region of the Earned Income Credit can have an effective marginal tax rate of about 50%. I think that is inexcusable.

Miraculous defined by Merriam Webster-Of the nature of a miracle, Supernatural. No, I don't consider any of my children miracles. I cherish them dearly, watching them sleep is beautiful, & I adore their very being.
I feel being a Mom is precious & natural, not supernatural or miraculous.
My heart goes out to women with infertility problems. It's an emotional rollercoaster ride of hope & disappointment. The treatments are totally consuming. It would be easy to become fixated on a calendar. Everything has to be perfect. I understand what you are saying though Sylvia. The desire to become an obsession isn't healthy.

"Italy individual income tax rates 2008
Tax (%) Tax Base (EUR)
23% 0 - 15,000
27% 15,001-28,000
38% 28,001-55,00
41% 55,001-75,000
43% 75,001 and over

The Italian government should provide everything with tax rates this high."

Yes, we pay taxes.(actually now there are only 3 income brackets with a maximum taxation of 41% and 85% of Italians fall in the first 2, with a maximum income tax of 33%) But please keep in mind that 1 $ is worth 0,63 Euro and adjust accordingly: 15000 euros are 23000 dollars and you can live here quite confortably with this sum.

There are also a number of detractions ( for minor children, for people with disabilities, for families that care for their old people at home) that irrespective, so that with two children, even if we are in higher bracket, we practically don't pay income taxes.

And I am on a facultative, government funded, maternity leave, at 30% of my pay, for 6 months for each child (the first 5 months, two months before the birth and 3 months after are mandatory maternity leave and paid at 100%).

Italians are not impoverished by the income taxes: 87% of the people in Italy are homeowners and we don't have currently the mortgage/loan crisis that is plagueing the USA. Average car possession is 1,8 for family as most people living in historical cities does not have a car and rely on public transportation.

Living out of credit cards or the high level of personal debt that is common in USA is considered an aberration and people who has is usually referred to mental health providers (again , subsidised) as it usually a symptom of mental problems (like a gambling or shopping addiction).

BTW, university tuition is about 1800 Euros at year, even at PhD level and the quality is comparable to USA: in fact the university where my husband and I are teaching, a relatively small one, currently has standing teacher and student exchange programs with Columbia, Berkeley, MIT and Yale. In the last years I have taught to hundreds of American students advanced courses in math, cpuet design etc..The same applies to Medical schools and Law faculties.

When we get old (65 for men and 60 for women) we have government funded, secure (no risk of bankrupted or raided pension funds ), pensions : the amount is derived by the income taxes paid throughout your life but they can not (by law) amount to less of 516 Euros (807 $), for the truly poor there also additional contributions for heating, transportation and disabilities.

When we get sick (and everybody gets sick, sooner or later), with cancer (as it happened to me), or with MS, or we get a stroke, or we become old, ALL the medical treatments are free for everybody irrespective of income and cover not only the intensive care but also the rehabilitation and the eventual resulting disability and medication (including pain management), for the rest of your life.

I was cured in one of the best cancer research centers in Europe ( a leading world centre for breast cancer, the IEO in Milan) and 7 years later for my high risk pregnancy in another leading research center for Fetal Medicine, in Padua, without having to pay one single Euro.

Nobody here has to mortgage his home or go broke because he is sick.
I am happy to pay higher income taxes for this.

Average length of life in Italy is 77 years for men and 83 for women against 75 and 80 for USA.

Of corse this system is perfectible (we have a lot of tax evasion) but IMHO it s more dignified that USA one where people can end brokeor homeless when they get sick.

On the infertility matter, yes having children can become an obsession (not only for the infertile, there are plenty of fertile people that keep on making babies to feel that "special" feeling or to multiply themselves...) and EVERY obsession is unhealty but on the other side infertility treatments need persistence and obstinacy ( as it is for most chronic illnesses) so you need to focus on it when you are doing them.

The main thing is not to let the treatments dominate your life and keep your inner balance with friends, books, gardening, music,..whatever is good for you. This is also a good "training" (learning to balance your life) for when you become a parent , especially of twins..And for step-parenting too.

Searer,
I have twin 22 month old boys & a 9 month old. The twins are extremely busy. Good luck to you. When people say it gets easier as they get older....a tiny bit only. When they were learning to walk, that was very challenging. Have fun & enjoy.

Searer,
I have twin 22 month old boys & a 9 month old. The twins are extremely busy. Good luck to you. When people say it gets easier as they get older....a tiny bit only. When they were learning to walk, that was very challenging. Have fun & enjoy.

One of Merriam-Webster's definitions of miracle is:

"an extremely outstanding or unusual event, thing, or accomplishment"

I think babies certainly qualify.