Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Should We Pay To Fertilize Women's Barren Wombs?

The question is, should we cover women's fertility treatment for in-vitro fertilization under our socialized healthcare plan?


Women are go getters now:

This above graph is old. Following the trend momentum for women, the average age of first marriage projects to 27-28 years old and this is just the average. Though it must be noted that marriage is now unhinged from the connection to childbirth due to our now 42% single women birth rate (graph dated), I surmise that by combining the fact that women are 60% of college degrees and out earn men in every major city in the U.S. with the phenomena and effect of female hypergamy as demonstrated below, attempting to fertilize their increasingly barren wombs is untenable:

Education and Hypergamy, and the “Success Gap” by Prof. Elaina Rose * Department of Economics University of Washington:
Percent mothers by level of education obtained ages 30-34. LINK

-age at first attempt at pregnancy puts an increasing amount of women at around age 35. Study: Age of First-Time Moms Is Going Up

"One explanation of the change in average age of first-time mothers is that the proportion of first births to women 35 and older has increased nearly eight times since 1970, the researchers say."

We know that this age onward is the twilight of female fertility. If we further add in the fact that 1 in 4 women now carry an STD most prominent of which is HPV disease, this further serves to decrease their fertility (See: HERE (Women's vaginas now more toxic than tobacco)).

I believe that with in-vitro fertilization treatment being as expensive as it is, combined with the rate of growth in demand we are experiencing for this procedure, along with demographic population trends and current debt obligations we are currently experiencing, paying to make women's wombs fertile will be an unsustainable expenditure. Reality is that we simply can't afford it.

The fertility quotient clearly places problems in the age 35-40 range
Source: Management of the Infertile Woman by Helen A. Carcio and The Fertility Sourcebook by M. Sara Rosenthal

I looked at the census the other day. Half of women up to age 29 have never been married and with only a 44% total intact marriage rate at age 34 we have serious problems not only in the prospect of the two biological parent married family but fertility itself. With our already below replacement level birth rate we simply can not afford not to take on the strain of not only the baby-boomer generation on our healthcare capacity but the fallout from the subsequent decline in birth rate and furthermore the decline in number of births altogether. None of it seems sustainable to me.

To be honest I suspect that we will increasingly be overrun by the foreign hordes pounding at our gates if not having to open immigration policy in order to stem our decline. I do not expect American culture to remain homogeneous for very long. If anything I expect us to become an ever more divided nation along the lines of the socio-ethnic, gender, fundamental moral ethos as related to the social construct and policy but also religion \ the lack thereof. When a culture is dissolved to these levels and representation is divided accordingly, discord ensues. Increasingly as the core foundation of the mated pair bond breaks down, we witness disparate representation by socio-political and socio-economic gender class, and at this point it is mainly on behalf of women. The natural consequence is a further exacerbation of the initial problem i.e. the breakdown in the male\female mated pair bond and the social structure that facilitates it.

In-Vitro fertilization is very expensive. Given all indications I believe the trends which make our women increasingly infertile to begin with will continue to increase. The increasingly lower fertility rate itself causes the impact of future liability to fund such treatment in the current moment to be fiscally unsound. Suffice as to say we already have or will soon reach an event horizon that can not be returned from. This is to say that the problem is self compounding and exponential in scope.

There is indeed a point at which the lower marginal yield of new lives born in the current and past moments will be unable to sustain the fiscal liability of the cost to benefit ratio of applying such treatment. Methods to make our women's wombs fertile again must become more cost effective than they are now and done so as soon as possible and furthermore efforts must be made to facilitate the male \ female mated pair bond to increase the birth rate altogether. Otherwise, it appears to me that our children will be unable to sustain our current, prospectful and projected debt obligations and not just this area....in all areas.

However, it does seem that women have an emergency response otherwise known as the biological clock. Though the mated pair bond itself is breaking down we do have loose knit cohabitation along with single mother births. Women find a way at this point to get pregnant regardless of circumstances of the relationship. In this case I expect the trend of single mother birth may perhaps be keeping this particular liability of infertility in check. For those who believe that men should be members of the family, the lives of their children and have the end goal of child birth within this framework, infertility is on course to increasingly become a problem for those who plan to wait until the creation of a married family.

1 comment:

P Ray said...

Why is having a baby a right (ONLY for women ... I'm sure some men want babies too!),
but having a vasectomy is something to be self-funded?
I call SEXISM!