Paying For Others to Have Kids?

There's a bit of a debate raging right now over whether the Ontario Government should fund in-vitro fertilization. Honestly, I really haven't been following this story too much but I do have some comments on it. According to the Toronto Sun, a panel of experts has suggested that the provincial government should pay for the fertility treatments of women under the age of 42 including gays, single parents, and those who are HIV positive. People obviously do have a right to bare children should they choose to. However, the last two have me bothered. Heterosexual and gay couples obviously have fertility issues not by choice. One due to health concerns, the other due to a supposedly hardwired sexual orientation. It is also more likely that the children will be raised in a stable home. Studies have shown that children with two active parents tend to fare better than those with single parents at pretty much every aspect of life. Ann Coulter in her book "Guilty" argues that willing single moms, those who deliberately choose to raise a baby without a father or any other second parent, should not be entitled to government support. I tend to agree with her on this subject. I've heard all to many stories of single women getting in vitro from sperm banks just because they want someone to give them unconditional love or they believe they are unlovable. Not exactly the best mental state to raise a child in involuntary conditions, such as divorce. Choosing to do so intentionally is just plain selfish.

Then there's the suggestion that HIV positive people are entitled to such treatment. I must admit I'm confused by this isn't explained vary well. Is it the mother who has HIV that's getting the treatment, or is it the father with the disease? In the case of the former, would the baby not be in serious risk of contracting HIV? Is some sort of surrogate involved? Do we have to pay them for their services if so? Also, even though AIDS fatalities have dropped significantly over the years, the parent is still at high risk of premature death from, lets face facts, a 100% preventable disease, leaving the child at an equally high risk of becoming orphaned. I get the feeling that this panel really hasn't examined the social aspects of this issue beyond whether it's a parents right to have a child.

Of course this begs the question. With all the children in this country up for adoption, why are we encouraging people who may not be able to take care of their kids to have their own biological children? Furthermore, why are people so obsessed with having biological children to begin with? Many parents who have adopted have expressed that they love that child as much as any biological child. There are thousands of kids out there that need a good home. Simply put, if you cannot have your own children, why would you not pursue this avenue? You will have far greater impact on an adopted child's life than you probable would your own. I know I would certainly consider it if I were in this situation. Rather than pay for in vitro, the government should instead be streamlining the adoption process to make it faster for fit parents to bring their child home, as well as open the ability to adopt any available child they want. (of course I'm speaking of the rubbish which often requires adoptive parent and child to be the same race or cultural background) This would be money well spent and would make a huge difference in some child's life.