April 04, 2006

seeing red right now

I'm so upset right now, I can barely see straight, so bear with me if this is all a bit incoherent.

For those who don't know, I can't conceive children naturally. Years of endometriosis riddling my reproductive system resulted in the ligation of one fallopian tube, and the removal of the other, along with one of my ovaries. My left ovary functions normally and has taken over double-duty since the loss of its twin. None of this has been particularly easy or fun for me, but it's the hand I've been dealt, so I suck it up and try to be as positive and hopeful as possible that I might one day be able to conceive and carry a child with the help of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology).

I'm one of the fortunate ones, too. Unlike many, my health care plan covers infertility benefits, including ovulation stimulation, timed intercourse, artificial insemination, and in-vitro fertilization (with a lifetime maximum benefit). It's more than most people could ever hope to get, and I'm grateful to have it. As with most expensive medical treatment, there are caveats galore to my benefits, but most make sense and I can deal with them.

Except for one. This one:

Benefits are available for a legally married policyholder (employee) or the spouse on her husband's policy (he is employee).

After reading that, I'm still shaking with rage, for many, many reasons. First of all, maternity care and benefits are not limited to married heterosexual couples. So I have to be a married heterosexual to get the help I need to conceive a child, but anyone who can screw or operate a turkey baster is A-OK? Because my road to motherhood is more expensive, someone gets to decide what kind of morals or ethics I need to be displaying in my life before I'm granted PERMISSION to reproduce?

Also covered by my plan is abortion (not going there right now) and circumcision. CIRCUMFUCKINGCISION is covered by insurance to NON-MARRIED PEOPLE, but I can't get the scientific assistance I need if I want to start a family! A family where the choices will NOT INCLUDE lopping off pieces of skin from my son's penis! But if I wanted to, my insurance company would sure as hell pay for THAT, married or NOT!

You know, I rarely go into these kinds of tirades about the world not being fair and all, because guess what, life's not always fair, and you just DEAL WITH IT, but FUCK. I can't help but wonder why this kind of stupid irony managed to make its way to my doorstep.

Not only that, some insurance plans or doctors will only cover fertility treatments if the woman has tried to conceive "the natural way" for a certain amount of time. Which isn't all that natural if your partner is a woman. Some doctors refuse to inseminate lesbians or unmarried women altogether. Of course, they'd also have a problem with women using birth control. Apparently women should be punished for having anything other than married, Christian intercourse.

I'm also trying to have a baby. I'm not having much luck conceiving, but I haven't been to ob/gyn yet. That's in a couple of weeks.

But I didn't realize it was so difficult. I thought you just had to have loads of unprotected sex and nature would take its course.

I'm a member of the Alternatives to Marriage Project (http://www.unmarried.org). I'm so tired of corporations and public policy gearing everything to married couples or parents, as if the rest of us (who are the MAJORITY, by the way) don't matter.

Not to prod, but considering how many children there are in this world already, and how we've bashed blood-bigotry to bits (ooh, alliteration!), isn't it easier emotionally for you and them to.. well, adopt?

If they won't let you, I completely understand, and I think that should be changed. But as there are 500,000 children in foster care in the US alone (and 100,000 up for adoption at the very least), for the sin of being mentally retarded or terminally black, why not do something for not only you, but someone else?

It's the same, for me, as it would be for adopting a cat or a dog: there are already too many as it is, and there aren't enough humans willing to take care of them and make sure they're okay, so it's therefore immoral to go to a breeder or pet store and increase the demand for Brand Spanking New! puppies and kittens rather than adopting from a shelter. It's for your wants alone, and damn it.. don't they need love too?

Adoption is both easier and cheaper when you adopt a child that is other than white, might I add. While participating in the white baby trade (and I say this because couples are so bent on getting a baby of their own colour that they leave the others in the dust) can often exceed $100,000, the adoption cost for black babies is around $25,000 -- because the demand is much lower for them, again for the sin of being terminally black.

Furthermore, there is to consider the environmental ethics of adding another consumer to the ecosphere -- we have enough as it is, and the human race is slowly but surely pushing other species out of existence because of their rapacious consumption of space. Is this any way to treat the animals we, as vegans, are ethically bound to protect?

I can understand it's cheaper to have your own. But so are a lot of things: eating McDonalds every day instead of being vegan (only $3/day!), buying pesticide-laden fruits and vegetables instead of organic ones, and so much more. That doesn't make it right.

And if you want it because "you want them of your own blood", tell me, how is this any different from wanting them of your own colour? Is the rest of the world so much worse than you are? Are those children needing love tainted by the sin of not being of your blood? Are they less needy because they aren't of your blood? Are they less deserving of love and care by the sin of not being of your blood?

Before you say "you've never wanted your own child", believe me, I have. But I know that's not the way to go, just as I know that eating meat because you want to is not the way to go. It's not all that much different -- both having a child and being nonvegan is ethically, environmentally, and socially destructive.

I don't mean to sound self-righteous here, I honestly don't. But we need to rethink our own wants sometime -- I did. We need to reduce the stress on the ecosphere and the ever-encroaching infestation -- yes, considering, that is what it is -- of humans.

If you're not willing to make the ethical choice, I can't argue with that. But I can at least not be held silent for fear of "being oppressive" and "offensive", both of which I have also been called for calling meat consumption disgusting. I can at least say what I think. And maybe someone out there will listen. And that's a step in the right direction.

You're always welcome to leave your thoughts and comments here. Since you're able to convey your beliefs in a respectful, thoughtful manner, I welcome what you have to say.

As you said, we definitely aren't going to agree that living a childless life is the most ethical choice. I think there are other ways the human race can stop encroaching on the environment and animals without ignoring or ceasing the basic human desire of many (but not all) to have a biological child. I appreciate that you have recognized this choice for yourself, but I will continue on my quest to conceive and raise a child out of love with my partner.

That said, I do want to address something you brought up - adoption. I have always wanted to adopt a child. I realize there are many children in the foster care system and the adoption system that need loving, caring families. As a woman, I want to experience the joy of conception, pregnancy and childbirth. Call me selfish, but I want that experience. And here's the thing. I want to have the experience ONCE, because I know it will be a very difficult journey, emotionally and physically. (I've been on it once before and it ended in miscarriage.) I'd gladly adopt fourteen children who are already part of this world, but I want to experience motherhood from my own body one time.

And it's actually just as difficult and expensive a process to adopt a child of color than it is to adopt a caucasian baby. The foster care system in this country can be exceedingly difficult to work through, moreso than a private adoption of a white baby in many cases.

My point in posting this entry was not to debate the ethics of parenthood, though I'm glad to enter into the discussion. It was to point out the hypocrisy of the health insurance system in doling out benefits for procedures and individuals that they deem "more worthy" or "ethically correct."