Recently I read a story that collected the complaints of these women, who believe that their desire to be mothers should be attended by Social Security and paid for the treatments, because, otherwise, they are being discriminated against women who do partner. I have thought that it is a topic that we can discuss in our section of Baby Questions and more.
Given the controversial issue we have thought that it can be an interesting topic for us to discuss in the section of the question of the week, and we formulate it therefore:
Should insemination for women without a male partner be free?
Science now makes many possibilities available to families who have fertility problems: insemination, assisted fertilization, egg donations, sperm or even embryo adoption. Thanks to these advances, women without a male partner who want to be single mothers or form a homosexual couple can also reach motherhood.
However, although Social Security covers some treatments, this coverage only applies to cases in which members of a couple have fertility problems, and not to women who want to be mothers.
Should Social Security cover insemination treatments for women who do not have a male partner such as single women or lesbian couples?
Being a mother is something that cannot be denied to any woman, either because she has no partner or whatever her sexual orientation, however, the medical treatments offered by the public health service do not contemplate taking care of this type of attention, since there is no fertility problem in any parent. Is the demand that these women be offered also legitimate?
The arguments of these women are that they are being transmitted that they should reproduce with men but, really, we still need male gametes to fertilize an egg, even if we are single or do not have sex with men. In fact, we are talking about a medical treatment to solve a health problem, that is what Social Security pays. Nor the right to be a father to anyone is paid, but to solve the medical causes that make it difficult.
Is it that the State must guarantee all citizens that they can be parents even if they do not have fertility problems to achieve it? I, despite feeling sympathy for women who want to be mothers in any circumstance and consider that they cannot be discriminated against under any circumstances, I am not sure that denying them insemination treatments in charge of Public Health is discriminatory.
Last week's question
Last week our question was about a very topical issue, the decision under the law, which parents can take to vaccinate their children or not. Our question was specifically: What do you think of non-vaccination?
The responses of our readers are not favorable to non-vaccination and in general, express concern about possible infections. The most valued response is that of Crisis Martínez:
The nonsense of the human being reaches unsuspected limits. We have managed to prevent our children from going through some diseases and, suddenly, a collective decides to go back and return to the stone age. I don't think it's logical or responsible.
We encourage you to participate in our question this week directly in the section of Answers, and next Wednesday we will comment on the most valued answers.
In Babies and more | the question of the week
