Sharon, I refuse to pick on you. But I do have some issues with your reply. Not least of which is your sniping.

First, ANY amount of money for a luxury is too much. And let's face it, childbearing is a luxury.

"Believe me, I would rather have had that blood test and found that autoimmune disorder BEFORE doing two IVFs. (Although my concern is for my anguish, not your wallet.)"

Here's my question -- why did a medical practitioner take your significant and likely hard-earned money and subject you to two trials of IVF before helping you find out what was causing your infertility? And furthermore, I understand your pain -- I don't understand what causes it, however, or why you want the rest of us to bankroll it.

"Things would also be much more affordable if the drug companies didn't have so much power."

Have you ever heard the phrase "what the market will bear?" Here's a hint: In America it bears $25,000 IVF cycles.

"This IS a case for better public policy, but not to limit my access to these resources. Better public policy (in the form of better coverage for testing) would make it all more affordable for everyone. But you would probably disapprove of making it cheaper because then fewer of us would "just" adopt."

That's an unfair jibe. Read carefully -- i said nothing about limiting anything relating to infertility except the ability to spend $25,000+ chunks of someone else's money in chasing your dream of acquiring a child of your own genetic material.

"...your tone has basically been that you worked through your own issues, and this is what's best for you, and so... nobody should get any help with other options."

Wrong. You should get every bit of help available to help you make informed decisions, put things in perspective, and find out what, if any, issues you have. But I balk at spending money for the 30% chance of producing a child.

"You are so very dismissive of the intensity of the feelings involved that you come off as not only heartless but ignorant even though your personal experience shows you are not."

Obviously you have your interpretation -- but I don't dismiss your feelings. I simply ask where they come from and if anyone ever bothers to consider that they come from someplace other than a complete healthy deep depression because one is unable to conceive (which, if the case, personally, I feel has depressing ramifications for our society). A question, you'll note, that few people even bothered to try to answer. Where does the core assumption come from?

Furthermore, intensity of feeling is not justification in and of itself for policy.

"Your argument would be more persuasive if, instead of stridently declaring "I don't want a penny of my money blah blah blah" you would argue that medical resources are finite and maybe this is not the best allocation for them. Then we could debate, for example, whether it's OK that we spend (waste) so much money in the last 3 months of a terminally ill person's life. But you're basically making a sour grapes argument: if I can't do it, I'm not going to help anyone else do it."

On the first, you're right. I could've been more delicate. But I disagree that my argument is sour grapes. Some will choose to do it and some won't. Some can and some can't. I can have my own children and I won't. Call me crazy, but I don't think it's noble to risk death or make a bad medical situation worse or spend thousands of other people's dollars so I can produce my own child. Women who have problems like mine have babies every day. In fact, many believe believe they must have their own babies if they can, never minding if they should. They are helped by well-meaning support systems who tell them it's noble to struggle and suffer so for the chance to have a child. And I don't believe that. I think I'm more useful parenting someone who's already here and continuing to be relatively healthy. I don't think it's healthy for many women who have these same issues or for society to bankroll a potentially unhealthy obsession with babies at any cost.

As for the terminally ill, that's a false analogy. And I won't get into my recent personal experience on that subject -- suffice it to say I am from a medically fragile line and I have an opinion there, too. But I don't think the two are analagous.

""Sometimes you don't get what you want" is a great argument for why I am not a famous opera singer or an astronaut or whatever...It can, however, increase my chances of having a baby from close to zero to about 30 percent. And while I am lucky to have insurance, it would be cruel to shut someone out of that option due to cost."

To belabor your analogy, enough money could get you significantly toward any of these goals. It could get you a record deal, a nose job, extensive education in the area you wish to pursue, etc. The fact remains that I don't see why society should pay for anyone to gamble with their fertility. Where's the limit on this? Shall we pay for IVF at public cost, so that no woman regardless of income or ability or employment will be denied the opportunity to procreate? Shall we make it virtually free for teenagers and the elderly? Should we give it to people who cannot possible afford the resulting children? I don't see why asking you to pay for something which is both nonessential and outside the realm of certainty is cruel. Please enlighten me.

omit "liver" -- apparently i was having a wack attack there.