S/O Insurance + IVF

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:2e9a757d-2928-45f8-9de4-71af7a72544c">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Im not saying I want everyone to die because of natural selection or anything. I just think that maybe all of the medical advancements we are making, while keeping people alive, arent helping out the world in the big picture. I dont want my family and friends to die, but we all have our time. We cant live forever. I think expecting life to last forever because you can engineer it to is sort of selfish to the rest of the world.
Posted by Nebb[/QUOTE]

I agree with this.  I'm a big fan of natural selection.    Some people argue "but what about the things we're doing that make things like cancer more likely?" and I say "that's all of a part of natural selection."  Do I think that things like cancer treatments shouldn't be available?  Well no.  I don't.  I'm a big fan of modern medicine and I would NEVER say that someone or their loved one should die just because of natural selection.  But I agree that we really aren't helping the big picture.  I just hope that it's not enough to really adversely affect me before I die.

I realize this all sounds very insensitive, and like I said, I woud never suggest that someone not seek treatment or that we don't make it available.  I just agree that it's not really what the world had in mind.

Then again, there's the argument that if we weren't meant to have the treatments, we wouldn't have been able to discover it, etc, which is also an intriguing argument that I can see.  So I'm pretty much on a big ol' fence here.

Nebb

I have to go grocery shopping so that I have time to tan when I get home. I will say one final thing.

Jurassic Park. Thats my final thought on this matter.

megk8oz

Also, DH and I are planning to start TTC in another year or so. I'm absolutely terrified that we won't be able to for some reason. I can't speak for what I'll do then, but right now we both seem to whole-heartedly agree that if we can't, we'll get tested to see if something's wrong (That way, if one of us is sick or something, we can get that treated). But whether or not something is wrong, we've already said we won't even entertain the idea of IVF.

I could totally change my mind about that, I will admit ... but I know I will never be able to justify us going into massive amounts debt to conceive. I'd rather not be a parent at all than be an irresponsible one.

[Deleted User]

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:316f19b7-3c56-4cf1-b1ea-840166301eba">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE] Then again, there's the argument that if we weren't meant to have the treatments, we wouldn't have been able to discover it, etc, which is also an intriguing argument that I can see.  So I'm pretty much on a big ol' fence here.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

This is the exact point that I was just coming in here to make. Sure, we could say that natural selection should be respected, but who is to say that modern medicine isn't all part of that in the big scheme of things?

M&R7111

You know what else just popped into my head:

I remember there being debates on covering BC because of "religious" and "ethical" reasons.  There are many religions who condemn BC and therefore do not feel it should be paid for.

I know this to be true for IVF - especially with Christian faiths.  It is considered a sin because of the embryos formed that never are born.  Is there or has there been any resistance from groups to not have IVF covered in some areas?

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:dfa94173-5889-46cd-9827-fa37697ded9a">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : This is the exact point that I was just coming in here to make. Sure, we could say that natural selection should be respected, but who is to say that modern medicine isn't all part of that in the big scheme of things?
Posted by cew515[/QUOTE]

Exactly.  And this is where I get all confused, and curl up in a ball crying about how I don't wanna die.

jasmineh7777

No, I don't think insurance should cover IVF treatments. An inability is different than a disease that needs to be actively fought.

I also would say that if you really, truly, want to be a parent than you should be willing to adopt. I think it is a biological urge to have our own children, but wanting to be a parent is a totally different matter.

And I think Nebb's position doesn't really encompass the possibility of your child getting sick. Would you want your 10 year old not to get treated, because Darwin thnks he's genetically inferior?

jennylove810

M&R - I wondered if someone would bring up religion.  I can't answer your question but I will say this.  I certainly have a complicated relationship with my Roman Catholic faith, but if I were unable to get pregnant, I would accept (eventually) that it was not in God's plan for me.

jasmineh7777

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:6d52913c-92b4-4037-861e-9fc9de254b40">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]M&R - I wondered if someone would bring up religion.  I can't answer your question but I will say this. <strong> <em>I certainly have a complicated relationship with my Roman Catholic faith</em></strong>, but if I were unable to get pregnant, I would accept (eventually) that it was not in God's plan for me.
Posted by jennylove810[/QUOTE]

I feel like all of us struggling Catholics need a club. I could steal some communion wine today.

lizr7313

Not exactly related to the topic, but most insurance companies do cover birth control and most don't cover Viagra.  At least that's been my experience with the majority of insurances I see in the pharmacy.

jasmineh7777

I had fantastic insurance once upon a time, and my birth control wasn't covered.

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:b13c4916-1bcc-44db-af89-a1809f1733df">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]I had fantastic insurance once upon a time, and my birth control wasn't covered.
Posted by jasmineh7777[/QUOTE]

Yeah, mine wasn't covered under my mom's insurance.  Unless it was for reasons other than to prevent pregnancies.  Yay for Catholic companies' insurance!

jasmineh7777

Mine was for my endometeriosis, and I still had to have a long, awkward conversation with my priest about it.

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:7f25aaf9-a692-42d1-8bc8-7ad4b72c7af3">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Not exactly related to the topic, but most insurance companies do cover birth control and most don't cover Viagra.  At least that's been my experience with the majority of insurances I see in the pharmacy.
Posted by lizr7313[/QUOTE]

Things may have changed, but I know that when i was in college BC was not covered by my insurance unless it was medically necessary.  I had a cyst when I was 16 and had been on BC  to control the growths of them.  They had me go into get an ultrasound after a year of being on BC and the cyst was gone.  Then they stopped covering the prescription.

However, by not taking the BC, my cysts grew back as I ovulated.  So to get BACK on BC I would have to make ANOTHER gyno apt, get another ultrasound to determine that, yes, BC is medically necessary, then go through the whole cycle a year later.  I said enough of the BC BS and just wasn't on it for a while and dealt with the painful cysts.

However, my current insurance does now cover BC for contraceptive use.

lizr7313

I'm thinking things must have changed, because I rarely see it not covered.  It may not be as cheap as it should be, but it's at least covered by most plans.  Obviously Catholic insurance companies may be the exception.  I see some plans that cover ED drugs, but most of them don't.  Luckily, most men will pay the high cost for ED drugs but complain about a $7 copay for a diabetes medication. /End rant. Sorry to go off topic! I do think this topic is interesting, though.

J&K10910

Yeah,e ven when my BC was covered (under my dad's insurance) I still paid $34 a month for it.  Now I have much b etter insurance, but yeah.

M&R7111

Oh man, mine is $65/month WITH insurance.  I think I save $16.95 with my insurance plan.  woo hoo.

It actually says that on my package "You saved $16.95 with your insurance!"  I use to have a plan where it was only $20/month. 

vegasgroom

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:c4cfbaf3-55ab-44a9-a546-51c82cced8ce">S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Do women have the 'right' to have children?  Should fertility treatments/IVF be covered by insurance? I get the sense that a lot of people will disagree with me, but I say no.  Children are wonderful, but I don't necessarily think women are entitled to bear them simply because we have the equipment for doing so.  I don't think it's our insurances' responsibilities to pay to fulfill our emotional needs.  Not having children won't kill a woman or make her unhealthy in any way, so if we want IVF, shouldn't it be OUR responsibility to cover the cost? I also accept that maybe, someday, my opinion will change, but right now I'm curious what the rest of you think.
Posted by jennylove810[/QUOTE]

I think women have a right to have children in that should they desire to conceive, there should be no *action taken* to prevent it except in the cases of women who have medical or mental issues that would make the pregnancy high risk to the mom or the kid.  So what I mean by that is I don't think we, the country and its laws, should stop a woman from conceiving if she's of sound mind and body and wants to, and as far as I know, we don't, but if she can't conceive due to a medical issue, it's her problem to deal with, whether that means paying for IVF or her insurance company paying for it.  I also don't have a problem with China capping residents' child output since they have serious overpopulation issues; I believe you're subject to hefty fines or other punishment if you have more than two children.

Now the question about insurance I don't think really needs debate; insurance companies are just businesses, some cover IVF, some don't.  It is not the role of government to force insurance companies (businseses) to do one thing but not another, assuming both things are legal, so whether an insurance company should cover a particular procedure or not is up to them and not our business unless we're customers of that company.  It could be debated between a particular insurance company's customers since obviously some would want it, some would not for moral reasons, while still others would object solely because some amount of what they pay in premiums would be funding that procedure.  If you don't like your insurance company's policies, change insurance providers, if you can't change insurance providers for some resason such as its your employer's only option, complain to your employer, if you can't change because you have a pre-existing condition and can only be covered by your employer's plan which doesn't include IVF, then you need to be responsible and save the cash, and finally, if you just don't want to change to a different provider who does cover it because it would cost you more, well, perhaps that is why they cost more, so deal with it.

Where I'd find this interesting would be in a country with socialized medicine; then I assume it would be a hot topic because tax payers would be deciding if their money should be used to help people conceive or not; I'd be interested in knowing if Canadians have access to IVF and how it's billed, I know next to nothing about their healthcare system's actual workings from a use standpoint.

GreenPepperBurger

I didn't read all of the responses, so forgive me if I echo someone's post. This may make me some enemies, but I think that people who spend thousands of dollars on IVF and thus put themselves into debt/bankruptcy (much like the talked about BPS) are selfish and insane, when there are so many needy children in the world that need good homes.

vegasgroom

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:b7df81e8-d1a2-4faf-8c28-c1ebb0664dac">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Why is Viagra covered under many insurance prescription plans?  Do men have the right to get a hard-on just because they have the equipment?
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

In the context of what insurance companies cover, it has nothing to do with the rights of their customers, it's business decisions they've made as to what they have decided to cover.  They're businesses, their job is to make a profit if they exist in this country.  Some statistician probably broke the Viagra issue down to this:

1) Viagra is popular; would our group health customers (i.e. businsesses with group plans) and our consumer customers be liketly to change to a different provider if Viagra is not covered?  What percentage would and what would we lose?
2) If a man with ED can't get wood, what happens next:
 a) Some percentage live with it
 b) Some percentage actually do talk to their doctor and get Viagra prescribed
 c) Some percentage can't bring themselves to talk to their doctor but also can't live with it, they get depressed, maybe they take it out on their family and then the man or couple need counseling which costs $X per person on average based on what is covered. 

Having the data related to all the above, is the $Y per person that Viagra co-pays cost the company higher than the $X per person that the resulting counseling costs plus the $Z the company might lose by losing business to competitors who offer Viagra?

I'm guessing that the answer to that calculation was that yes, it's less expensive to go ahead and cover Viagra than to raise rates or lose business or have to pay for counseling as a result of mental health issues that result in guys that can't get it up.  And the on the flip side, the cost to provide IVF is dramatically higher than the costs associated with lost business resulting from not offering it or the mental health costs for women who can't conceive and need help.

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:302df224-590d-4b1d-9b25-d08aeb889c97">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to S/O Insurance + IVF : I think women have a right to have children in that should they desire to conceive, there should be no *action taken* to prevent it except in the cases of women who have medical or mental issues that would make the pregnancy high risk to the mom or the kid.  So what I mean by that is I don't think we, the country and its laws, should stop a woman from conceiving if she's of sound mind and body and wants to, and as far as I know, we don't, but if she can't conceive due to a medical issue, it's her problem to deal with, whether that means paying for IVF or her insurance company paying for it.<strong>  I also don't have a problem with China capping residents' child output since they have serious overpopulation issues; I believe you're subject to hefty fines or other punishment if you have more than two children.</strong> Posted by vegasgroom[/QUOTE]

I agree, population control is necessary in many countries that are over populated.   However, I feel China has gone about it the wrong way.  While they may have stabilized their population, there have been negative side effects of the way they implemented the control.

Education of women and men is the best method.

megk8oz

Another "conflicted Catholic" in the house! I actually only got insurance right after the wedding, and I go to Planned Parenthood for my pills. My yearly was right before the wedding, so I actually have no idea if BC is covered my insurance or not ... I probably should look into that.

I think my "Catholic" side is why I get so "If I can't conceive on my own, I won't fight it" mentality. I guess I just figure if God has parenthood in my plan, an opportunity will present itself.

My youngest brother is adopted. My parents had 4 kids without any trouble years before. They were pretty sure they were done after their fourth, and my dad had a vasectomy. Cut to almost 10 years later, and a foster family moves in a couple houses down the street from us. They had this 3-year-old boy who was pretty much deemd "unadoptable" due to his medical issues (He has heart trouble and Aspberger's Syndrome). My parents and family fell in love with the kid, and we went through the process shortly after to adopt him.

I know not everybody has the kid they're meant to adopt move in next door like that, but at the same time, after that experience, I can't help but think if you're supposed to have a child, the universe will sort of lead you in the right direction, ya know?

J&K10910

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:f0b87d88-a6c4-4eae-ad37-0170141dd7ec">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : I agree, population control is necessary in many countries that are over populated.   However, I feel China has gone about it the wrong way.  While they may have stabilized their population, there have been negative side effects of the way they implemented the control. <strong>Education of women and men is the best method.</strong>
Posted by M&R7111[/QUOTE]

In what sense though?  I'm not trying to be a brat, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you think this could better be solved.  Because we have education on birth control and such here, and we still have people that are having 70 billion children and contributing to overpopulation.

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:3b157ae4-baed-46e6-947b-955a0d3112d2">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]Another "conflicted Catholic" in the house! I actually only got insurance right after the wedding, and I go to Planned Parenthood for my pills. My yearly was right before the wedding, so I actually have no idea if BC is covered my insurance or not ... I probably should look into that. I think my "Catholic" side is why I get so "If I can't conceive on my own, I won't fight it" mentality. I guess I just figure if God has parenthood in my plan, an opportunity will present itself. My youngest brother is adopted. My parents had 4 kids without any trouble years before. They were pretty sure they were done after their fourth, and my dad had a vasectomy. Cut to almost 10 years later, and a foster family moves in a couple houses down the street from us. They had this 3-year-old boy who was pretty much deemd "unadoptable" due to his medical issues (He has heart trouble and Aspberger's Syndrome). My parents and family fell in love with the kid, and we went through the process shortly after to adopt him. I know not everybody has the kid they're meant to adopt move in next door like that, but at the same time, after that experience, <strong>I can't help but think if you're supposed to have a child, the universe will sort of lead you in the right direction, ya know?</strong>
Posted by megk8oz[/QUOTE]

So could we then see having this new technology of IVF being invented as the universe leading?

The story of your youngest brother is very touching!  That is one issue with adoption, unless you are getting the child from birth, many children in foster homes have issues, health or mental.  I read often how many of these children are never adopted, and this leads to a troubled adult life (crime, etc.)


I taught a girl who had Aspberger's Syndrome.  She was one of my sweetest students!

vegasgroom

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:99a5305f-eff5-4234-a6c9-4b4dad5bda5e">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]My unpopular opinion for the day is I think the treatement of diseases and IVF proceedures are all part of why the world is over populated. People dont die in their natural time, they are kept alive or have their lives extended further than they would be naturally. People who naturally shouldnt be able to have babies, do. I think fucking with nature is a bad thing, though I know we do it in so many ways it isnt even funny.
Posted by Nebb[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with this because we haven't just suddenly started treating disease, and we're not necessarily doing anything that is not natural.  Many medicines are simply concoctions of things found in nature; how it is unnatural to cure yourself of a sickness by using something found in nature?  Penicillin for example, one of the most widely used antibiotics, was used before people even knew it existed when medics centuries ago put moldy bread on wounds.  We just happen to be better at finding ways to cure disease now.

If you argue for not advancing medicine to cure disease, then you should also argue for a return to a non-mechanized/non-electronic form of life since a lot of disease around the world is caused by unnatural toxins released through manufacturing, construction, travel that brings things between locations that would have otherwise been unreachable (think european diseases coming over to the indians by boat), etc.  Doing anything other than that would make you a hypocrite since you'd be saying it's ok that people are dying of man-made causes but it's not ok that people are surviving because of man-made cures.

shellydiane820

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:d1a21728-e7a0-4061-a2a6-25d329ddb7ce">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]<strong>No, I don't think insurance should cover IVF treatments. An inability is different than a disease that needs to be actively fought. I also would say that if you really, truly, want to be a parent than you should be willing to adopt. I think it is a biological urge to have our own children, but wanting to be a parent is a totally different matter.</strong> And I think Nebb's position doesn't really encompass the possibility of your child getting sick. Would you want your 10 year old not to get treated, because Darwin thnks he's genetically inferior?
Posted by jasmineh7777[/QUOTE]

<div>
</div><div>I agree with this completely.  </div><div>
</div><div>I also want to note my insurance does cover birth control, so I think it just depends on your coverage.  Viagra on the other hand, I haven't the slightest.</div><div>
</div><div>My opinion?</div><div>
</div><div>I don't like IVF anyway.  I personally just think its unnatural.  If your body can't have a baby, I think (and this sounds harsh) you should let nature take its course.  Maybe you're meant to be a foster parent or adopt.  There are so many ways to show your love to others than giving birth.</div><div>
</div><div>Now, (and this might be contradictory) if you're infertile because of some illness, or something that can be fixed or cured, I think its okay to take those measures.  </div><div>
</div><div>I have a family member who used IVF and it took her like four times (I think, some ungodly high number) and I just think: 1) get the clue 2) that's so much heartbreak every single time it failed and 3) They couldn't afford it, they shouldn't have done it anyway, her parents were paying for it.</div><div>
</div><div>Anyway, that's my two cents.  Nothing personal to those whom I may have offended. </div>

stinkerbell6879

Well I am going to pipe in without reading all of the responses. I am going to answer as a person who KNOWS that I will either have to have IVF or adopt...

Every insurance company that I have ever used does not cover this, and, I have no plans of going bankrupt to have kids....to me that defeats the purpose of being able to provide a wonderful home for your child.

megk8oz

Well, I suppose IVF could be considered "universe leading" ... I never really thought of it that way. But I also (possibly too narrow-mindedly) consider IVF fighting nature, so that could be why I never really considered it as such.

M&R7111

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_insurance-ivf?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:50bd0054-4c8f-42a1-85ab-72a6652cee3dPost:1ac14178-2708-4c57-ad81-5d94a27212a2">Re: S/O Insurance + IVF</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: S/O Insurance + IVF : In what sense though?  I'm not trying to be a brat, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you think this could better be solved.  Because we have education on birth control and such here, and we still have people that are having 70 billion children and contributing to overpopulation.
Posted by J&K10910[/QUOTE]

It's based off data from other countries.  I teach this concept in a class at my school.

We have education HERE in this country on BC and family planning, but not in all countries, especially developing ones. 

There are many factors that go into fertility rates including economic need for children, social status, the need for males, and culture/religion.    Many cultures do not realize that having 10-12 kids is putting stress on their economy and causing environmental degradation that then leads to less food and clean water.  With education on family planning, getting the men involved (especially in areas where the women do not have any say on their reproductive health), and religious community leaders involved, people are adopting a new outlook on having kids and are choosing to have fewer.   

Many methods governments are doing to lower fertility rates are increasing health care to lower infant mortality (which leads to higher fertility), encouraging women to marry later (results in less kids), and increasing a woman's status in society.

Oh - and I wanted to add - countries like the US are not major contributers to overpopulation.  The major contributers that have the largest growth momentums are Nigeria, India, China (duh), and Mexico.  It's not the number of children we have in the US every year, its related to replacement numbers.  On average, US families reproduce at (2 kids) or slightly above (3kids) replacement level.  In some of these developing nations, couples are having 10 - 12 kids! 

megk8oz

I can't remember if I mentioned this in the thread yesterday (Because frankly, Belle made my eyeballs bleed after a certain point), but the thing that really bothered the crap out of me with the BPS that started this whole thing, was the whole "I don't feel guilty, I finally get to be a mommy" thing.

I could be very, very wrong with my interpretation, but it kind of sounds like the poster doesn't really care about being a good parent, but about the AW aspect of being pregnant and having a baby. Like she's more focused on "Everybody's going to pay attention to me and my cute kid" than the actually "Ok, I have to feed and clothe something that will be completely dependent on me for the next several years".

And I know I can't be the only person that knows at least one woman that thought getting pregnant and having a baby was "the most awesome thing ever" and didn't fully realize that babies need to be taken care of 24/7, don't sleep through the night, and aren't the walk in the park TV makes it look like.

If you actually cared about "being a Mommy" and not the AW aspect of pregnancy, you would have done right by your kid and not deliberately bankrupted yourself just to conceive.